Campus Safety and Security
Committee
Annual Report to the Chancellor
Spring 2012
Table of Contents
I.
Introduction to the spring 2012 annual report ............................................................................. 3
II.
Chancellor’s charge to the committee ........................................................................................... 5
III.
Campus Safety and Security Committee members, 2011-2012 .................................................. 7
IV.
Major accomplishments in 2011-2012 ........................................................................................... 8
V.
Work in progress........................................................................................................................... 11
VI.
New recommendations for 2012-2013 ......................................................................................... 13
VII.
Notable changes to the safety plan............................................................................................... 13
VIII. Budget priorities............................................................................................................................ 14
IX.
UNC Charlotte Safety and Security Plan.................................................................................... 15
X.
Appendix A: UNC Charlotte crime data report........................................................................ 33
XI.
Appendix B: Student Campus Safety Survey Report ................................................................ 39
XII.
Appendix C: Faculty/staff survey report ................................................................................... 60
XII.
Appendix D: Alcohol purchase study report ............................................................................. 79
2
I.
Introduction to the spring 2012 annual report
This report, the fifth issued by the Campus Safety and Security Committee since its inception in
June 2008, updates the Chancellor on progress made toward implementation of the safety plan it
has developed and revised; offers highlights of campus safety accomplishments over the past
year; summarizes the many on-going activities aimed at enhancing campus safety; proposes three
new recommendations it believes should be incorporated into the plan; and suggests budget
expenditures in three areas.
In addition, the report summarizes several efforts initiated by the Committee in service to its
charge. Crime data for 2011 were collected and presented by Criminology and Criminal Justice
Professor Paul Friday and Police and Public Safety Director Jeff Baker, demonstrating
continuing effectiveness of efforts to reduce crime on campus. The campus crime rate continues
to decline in virtually all categories. Dr. Friday also conducted two surveys aimed at
understanding perceptions of safety on campus, one for employees and another for students.
These results, which indicate that community members feel largely secure on campus but that
more public relations efforts to educate the community about crime data and Police and Public
Safety goals are needed, are summarized in this report.
Dr. Friday, in collaboration with the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Drug Free Coalition, conducted the
annual alcohol purchase study, focusing on establishments in the University area that sell
alcohol. The study was extended this year to examine not only retail establishments selling
packaged alcohol but also bars and restaurants serving alcohol. Dr. Friday’s reports appear in the
appendices of this document.
At the request of the Chancellor, the Committee has established three-years term for members
and developed a system to implement rotated membership over the next three years. Two
member positions will be permanent (the Chief of Police and the Associate Vice Chancellor for
Risk Management, Safety and Security), and student representatives will serve one-year terms.
There are many efforts on campus in the service of safety and security and strong evidence that
the campus, which has always been a relatively safe place, has developed numerous policies,
procedures, and practices that the Committee believes make it measurably safer. Crime data are
the most direct evidence of this increased safety. The Committee is encouraged by these efforts
and the continued commitment to campus safety by Chancellor Dubois, members of the Cabinet,
and individuals and departments throughout the University community.
As the Committee transitions to new leadership and welcomes new members, it remains firm in
its commitment to stay abreast of national campus safety and security trends and of best
practices. The Committee believes that the University can continue to balance security
considerations with a desire to maintain an open, collaborative campus environment and that
3
principles of academic freedom, freedom of movement, autonomy, individual privacy, frank
discourse, and public access can coexist with concerns for community safety.
4
II.
Chancellor’s charge to the committee
January 2, 2008
Dear Colleagues:
Re: Campus Safety and Security Committee
I would appreciate your service on a new Campus Safety and Security Committee. The primary
purpose of this Committee is to develop and implement a comprehensive plan to assure the physical
safety and security of the main campus of UNC Charlotte. In addition to developing the plan and annually
monitoring our progress in achieving its goals and objectives, the Committee will advise the Chancellor
on any recommended changes in campus policies or procedures that could assist in making the campus a
safer and more secure environment for all. The Committee will also identify and place in priority order
those financial expenditures it believes are necessary to implement the major provisions of the plan.
Because this is a large task and a large group, I understand that it may take some months to
develop an initial set of recommendations and priorities. However, my hope is that substantial progress
can be made by July 1, 2008, so that we can enter the 2008-2009 academic year with a reasonably clear
set of goals and objectives.
Elements of such a plan will be determined by the Committee, but could be expected to include
topics such as:

Analysis of campus and neighborhood crime statistics to determine areas of greatest risk
and development of specific response strategies.

Administration and assessment of surveys conducted periodically to identify perceptions
about crime and campus safety so that areas of particular concern can be addressed.

Crime prevention, including security for residence halls, other campus facilities, parking
lots, and other outdoor spaces.

Safety education, particularly efforts aimed at new students, staff, and faculty.

Threat assessment, including efforts to screen prospective students, staff, and faculty, and
to identify, respond to, treat, and refer members of the campus community who may
represent a danger to themselves or others.

Alcohol and drug abuse education to reduce the frequency and severity of crimes
associated with the excessive use of alcohol and the consumption of illegal substances.

Educational programs to promote mental health and an understanding of mental health
issues among members of the campus community.

Public information and communication strategies to ensure that members of the campus
community and other affected constituencies (e.g., parents) receive accurate and timely
information relating to crimes occurring on campus or in nearby neighborhoods and the
University’s response.
5

Annual assessment of progress in implementing the goals and objectives of the plan,
including actual reductions in campus crime rates and/or adverse perceptions relating to
campus safety.
It is undoubtedly true that we already have many programs and activities in place that address
many of these topics. In such instances, a comprehensive plan will serve to document all of those
initiatives in one place. In other cases, the Committee may identify significant gaps in our approach to
campus safety and security that require attention.
As part of preparing a comprehensive campus safety plan, I will also ask the Committee to take
responsibility for review of and implementation of appropriate recommendations from the recent report
(enclosed) of the University of North Carolina Campus Safety Task Force (November, 2007). It is
expected that a similar report will be issued early in 2008 by the Attorney General’s Task Force on
Campus Safety.
Although it is clear from the work of the UNC Task Force that all campuses should engage in “all
hazards emergency planning,” my preference for the moment is for the Committee to stay focused on
threats to safety that are caused by criminal and violent behavior. Thus, at least for now, the charge of this
Committee does not extend to a review of the Campus Emergency Response Plan except with respect to
the timely communication of information concerning crimes that may be occurring on or near the campus
where the transmission of such information is necessary for individuals to take actions appropriate to
secure their own safety.
For your information, this Committee replaces the Campus Safety Task Force that was mandated
by the UNC Board of Governors in response to the murders at UNC Wilmington.
The work of this Committee will begin early in 2008 under the leadership of Associate Vice
Chancellor Dave Spano. I expect that, early in your work together, you will be assisted by a professional
facilitator to develop the outline, structure, and elements of a comprehensive plan. Because of the
importance of the topic and the size and scope of the charge of the Committee, I will also be allocating
resources to provide significant administrative support. Because of the composition of this group, its work
will fall under the provisions of the North Carolina Open Meetings statute and will be subject to its public
notice requirements.
Maintaining a safe and secure campus must be considered at the very top of our institutional
responsibilities. I appreciate your willingness to take the time and effort necessary to ensure that every
member of the campus community and every visitor is able to enjoy our beautiful campus without fear of
becoming a victim of criminal activity.
Cordially,
Philip L. Dubois
Chancellor
PLD/cfh
Enclosure
cc: Board of Trustees
Chancellor’s Cabinet
6
III.
Campus Safety and Security Committee members, 2011-2012
Non-expiring terms
Terms expiring July 2014
Jeff Baker
Police and Public Safety
Christine Reed Davis
Office of the Dean of Students
Henry James
Risk Management, Safety, and Security
Jesh Humphrey
Legal Affairs
Terms expiring July 2012
Lee Snodgrass
Facilities Management
David Spano, Chair
Counseling and Health Services
Marian Beane
International Programs
Adriana Medina
Reading and Elementary Education
Jayaraman “Jay” Raja
Academic Affairs
Paul Friday
Criminology and Criminal Justice
One-year student appointments
Jeanne Madorin
Human Resources
David Cramer
Student Government Association
Terms expiring July 2013
Steven Gotler
Student Government Association
John Bland
Public Relations
Elizabeth Shockey
Graduate and Professional Student Association
Kristin Kolin
Disabilities Services
Staff to the Committee
Allan Blattner
Housing and Residence Life
Melissa Johnson
Graduate Student, Social Work
Shawn Smith
Police and Public Safety
7
IV.
Major accomplishments in 2011-2012
The University continues to implement a number of best practices in campus safety and security
and to identify and fill gaps in policies, procedures, or practice where needed. Since its creation
in 2008, the Committee has identified a number of elements of a sound campus safety plan on
the UNC Charlotte campus. During the past academic year, a number of accomplishments and
trends have emerged that are contributing to enhanced safety and security on campus, including
the following:
1.
There continues to be significant and across-the-board reductions in campus
crime. The number of criminal offenses on campus decreased 35.7% from a high
of 644 in 2010 to 414 in 2011. This is the lowest number of reported offenses
since 2003, when enrollment was nearly 30% lower.
a. Reported “Part I” major crimes such as rape, robbery and aggravated assault
and arson are down nearly 20% from the prior year.
b. Reported “Part II” offenses such as simple assault, larceny, and drug
offenses are down over 47%.
c. While property offenses continue to be the most frequently reported crime
category, reports are down over 26% from 2010.
d. Reports of violent personal crimes are down over 26%, although there were
6 reported robberies on campus in 2011 compared with 1 in 2010.
e. Reported drug and alcohol offenses are down 57% from 2010.
This reduction in crime reports parallels Police and Public Safety organizational
changes, new prevention activities, and changes in priorities for campus
officers.
2.
A campus-wide survey of students conducted in April indicates students feel
much safer in 2012 than they did in 2009. A very small percentage (4%) of
students have been victims of campus crime. This is down from 5.8% in 2009.
Only 1.6% indicate they were victims of crime during the 2011-12 academic year.
3.
A campus-wide survey of employees conducted in April indicates employee
perceptions of safety have improved significantly since 2009. While female
employees report feeling less safe than male employees, the percentage of female
employees feeling unsafe on campus has decreased since 2009. A small
8
percentage (1.6%) of employees report being victims of crimes on campus, a
significant decrease from 2009.
4.
A website devoted to campus safety (campussafety.uncc.edu), maintained by Risk
Management, Safety, and Security, was launched. This site includes important
resources including links to safety videos for the campus community.
5.
The Campus Behavioral Intervention Team (CBIT) launched its “NinerCare”
website (ninercare.uncc.edu), which is being maintained by the Dean of Students
office. The goal of this site is to provide information for University faculty, staff,
and students to help them identify and get support for students who may be
disturbed or disruptive and to protect the University community. A resource
folder from the NinerCare team has been distributed to virtually all faculty and
staff on campus.
6.
Several emergency preparedness exercises were carried out during 2011-12, and a
full matrix of exercises has been developed by Risk Management, Safety, and
Security for the coming years.
7.
University Policy 101.17 (formerly Policy Statement #107) has been revised to
address issues related to workplace violence, as prescribed by the North Carolina
Workplace Violence Prevention Act. The revised policy adds definitions of
workplace violence, information regarding accommodations for victims of
workplace violence, and resources for assistance in obtaining protective orders.
8.
The Committee affirmed its support of emergency “blue light” phones as
important components of a comprehensive security plan in their practicality as
well as in their contribution to perceptions of safety for community members. The
Committee heard concerns that some of these phones were not accessible to
persons with mobility impairments. As a result of the Committee’s advocacy,
end-of-year funds were secured this spring by Associate Provost Cindy Wolf
Johnson to make emergency “blue light” phones accessible where it was practical
and cost-effective.
9.
Progress continues to be made in educating faculty and staff to respond to
students at risk of harm to self and others. In-person and online training programs
have been widely marketed and are in use by faculty and staff groups across
campus. Over 70 faculty and staff participated in a three-hour, in-person
“Campus Connect” training program. Marketing efforts promoted “At Risk,” an
interactive web-based program for faculty and staff. Additionally, a synopsis of
9
“At-Risk” and how to access it online was presented to new faculty during their
orientation, to academic advisors, to teaching assistants, to staff members in the
Center for Academic Excellence and Disability Services, and to faculty in the
College of Engineering.
10.
SafeRide continues to support on-campus transportation for those with mobility
impairments. The after-hours point-to-point escort service that has historically
been provided to all students is being replaced by a 24-hour campus shuttle
service. The Committee supports this change as it makes better use of Police and
Public Safety resources during evening hours.
11.
A relationship violence prevention specialist has been hired in the Center for
Wellness Promotion. An Interpersonal Violence Resource Committee has been
formed and is meeting monthly. Alliances have been created with related local
agencies and nearby universities. An increase in the student health fee was
approved to allow the hiring of an additional counselor in the Counseling Center
and a substance abuse assessment specialist in the Center for Wellness Promotion.
12.
UNC Charlotte was one of two host sites for a day-long threat assessment training
program for all counseling center clinicians in the UNC system. This training was
sponsored by UNC General Administration.
13.
The Maxient online system for reporting and tracking information regarding
incidents relevant to campus safety has been widely marketed and is being used
routinely.
14.
Safety guidelines for self-review for conference planning have been developed.
15.
The Employee Assistance Program has been revised. The University signed a
contract in January, 2012, with a new EAP vendor, ComPsych
GuidanceResources®, which offers significantly more assistance to employees
who may be experiencing personal problems that impact their performance or
who are victims of crime or violence.
16.
The LEAD program for new employees now includes information on training and
supervising student employees whose work gives them access to sensitive
information or significant authority over other students.
10
V.
Work in progress
While the University has fully implemented numerous recommendations aimed at enhancing
campus safety, a number of other initiatives are underway but not fully realized. Some of this
work in progress includes the following:
1.
A working group on background checks has been convened by Associate Vice
Chancellor Henry James, and a comprehensive policy on background checks for
prospective and current students, employees, vendors, contract workers, and
affiliates has been drafted.
2.
Building manager training is still a work in progress, as is the development of
building safety coordinators responsibilities. A small working group will be
convened to develop position descriptions and a concise description of
responsibilities.
3.
A policy on the acquisition, use, and maintenance of surveillance cameras is
nearing draft form.
4.
A safety accreditation process for off-campus housing units is being considered,
and the Committee endorses its continued development.
5.
Facilities Management reports that the project to install electronic access and
remote locking mechanisms on at least one door of every campus building
remains incomplete, and backup systems need to be completed as well. A new
system, Open Options, has replaced Lenel. Open Options offers easier control of
buildings and is more cost effective. Facilities Management has identified
significant resources needed to complete the project, and the Committee is
recommending in this report that these funds be allocated.
6.
The Department of Police and Public Safety (PPS) continues to review staffing
levels appropriate for a law enforcement organization with its scope of service-number of buildings, acreage, jurisdictional coverage, student growth, and new
programs—in order to remain effective in crime prevention and safety for
students, faculty, staff and visitors. After further review of the staffing levels
during the period of 2000 to 2011, it was determined that PPS was allotted
additional staffing during this period of time that resulted in the hiring of five (5)
FTE sworn officers. During the period of 2011-2012, there were eight (8)
positions added:

An Associate Director of Police Support Services (unsworn)
11


Two (2) sergeants (sworn)
Five (5) Police/Patrol Officers (sworn)
The additional sworn officers bring the departmental total to forty-five (45). PPS
continues to evaluate both the structure of the department and staffing,
particularly in anticipation of UNC Charlotte’s entry into Division I football and
other areas of operation that potentially impacts safety and security initiatives.
7.
The Campus Behavioral Intervention Team (CBIT) continues to work to outline
its Standard Operating Procedures as it explores national best practices in
behavioral intervention teams in higher education.
8.
While the Office of Parent & Family Services publicizes a monthly “Relatively
Speaking” electronic newsletter sent to parents/family members which has
periodically included safety information, the NinerNation Family website has not
yet been updated to include emergency information for students.
9.
The Committee’s recommendation to limit public access of student directory
information to email addresses is under review by Legal Affairs. It is
recommended that access to other directory information (such as physical address
and telephone number) be made available only to those on the campus network.
10.
A recommendation that student ID photos be shared electronically with other
offices is being reviewed by Legal Affairs.
11.
While there are procedures in place to identify applicants for admission who may
be a threat to the safety of the community (specifically through the PreAdmissions Review Committee), there are questions about who should be subject
to background checks and how these checks are done. There are ongoing
discussions between relevant units, including UNC General Administration, on
these issues.
12.
Student responses to the safety and security survey suggest they are unaware of
the quality and training of the UNC Charlotte police, the existence of a safety
plan, and the method for getting on email or text messaging lists for crime alerts.
The Committee believes messages about these details should be part of the
University’s comprehensive safety education plan. There remains a perception
that police are not as visible as students desire.
13.
The Committee recommends that safety and security at the Center City building
be assessed in future surveys.
12
14.
VI.
The Alcohol Purchase study conducted by Dr. Paul Friday indicated that the
number of University-area retail establishments that sold beer without checking
for identification increased from 18.5% to 28.9% over the past year. The
percentage of University area bars and restaurants in which the subject was
provided with alcohol without providing proof of age increased from 34.6% to
64.0%. Feedback will be provided to each of these establishments by Dr. Friday
and his team.
New recommendations for 2012-2013
Through discussions among Committee members and a continued review of best practices, the
following new recommendations are included in the current version of the Campus Safety Plan:

Install additional emergency “blue light” phones in areas where these phones do not exist,
most notably areas of the core campus including the King/Reese Hall area and the Cato
quad. The Committee has discovered that, since the removal of the Police and Public
Safety satellite office in King, this area has not had adequate emergency communication
resources.

Support the completion of a mobile application under development by K. R.
Subramanian, Associate Professor in Computer Science, William Ribarsky, Professor and
Chair in Information Technology, and Jack Guest, Research Associate, that will assist
first responders in understanding how buildings are populated to facilitate evacuation and
can direct individuals to the quickest evacuation route. This application would be
available for download on mobile devices. Start-up grant funds were provided by the
National Institute of Justice, under the title of “Situationally Aware Evacuation of Urban
Structures.” Funds to continue development of the application are now being sought. The
Committee voted to support this development following a demonstration of the
application by the developers.

Create a certification process, managed by the Dean of Students, which will clear
students to study abroad and will allow conduct issues from any prior university to be
reported when a student applies to transfer to UNC Charlotte.
VII.
Change to the safety plan
Besides minor changes in the language of some aspects of the Campus Safety Plan, the following
change to the plan is being recommended:
13

As a result of the Cabinet’s response to the Committee’s 2011 report, the Committee has
dropped its recommendation that campus volunteers be subject to criminal background
checks. Instead, the Committee endorses the work of the Background Check Working
Group, chaired by Associate Vice Chancellor Henry James, and encourages the Cabinet
to consider this group’s recommendations.
VIII. Budget priorities
While most aspects of the Safety Plan are currently being funded or can be implemented without
additional resources, the Committee recommends resources be allocated for the following (listed
in priority order):

Completion of the electronic access/ remote locking system on at least one door on each
campus building. Facilities Management estimates the cost of completing this project at
$800,000.

Support for further development of a mobile application for building evacuation and
people movement, a project of the College of Computing and Informatics. CCI is
requesting a $15,000 contribution, which will be supplemented by $10,000 from the
RMSS budget.

Construct up to 10 new emergency “blue light” phones at critical points on campus where
phones are not available. Facilities Management estimates this cost at an average of
$9,000 per phone, for a total of up to $90,000. Facilities Management and Police and
Public Safety are working to identify the number and location of additional phones.
14
IX.
UNC Charlotte Safety and Security Plan
Below is a comprehensive safety and security plan as updated by the committee for 2012, with a statement of the Committee’s
assessment of the current status of each item.
Recommendation
Responsible Unit(s)
Status
PREVENTION
Safety Education
1. The University should deliver a comprehensive safety education program to all current, full-time and part-time students, staff, and faculty.
a. Maintain and update a campaign to educate the campus
community on important safety issues, using multiple
tools such as a campus safety website, electronic
billboards, campus television systems, and newsletters,
Information should include warning signs of potential
threats, specific strategies for responding to various
threats, crime data, results of community surveys, and
other safety-related information as appropriate.
b. Offer training programs on safety for faculty and staff
employees with a focus on responding to disruptive
students or students at risk for harm to self or others.
Public Relations;
Risk Management,
Safety, and Security;
Safety and Security
Committee
c. Encourage faculty and staff to complete the online
FERPA tutorial.
Academic Affairs;
Human Resources
Dean of Students;
Counseling Center;
Academic Affairs
Activities are ongoing. Websites for campus safety
(campussafety.uncc.edu) and the Campus Behavioral
Intervention (“NinerCare”) Team (ninercare.uncc.edu)
have launched. Significant resources have been added to
the Police and Public Safety website. Videos will be
included as the site evolves. A resource folder from the
“NinerCare” team has been printed and distributed to
faculty.
The Counseling Center continues to promote “At-risk”
software, a 45-minute computer simulation for suicide
prevention training for faculty, and “Campus Connect” a
3-hour training on suicide prevention. The Dean of
Students office prepared a “NinerCare” folder that was
distributed to faculty and staff.
The FERPA online tutorial is currently available through
the Legal Affairs website and is linked to the Academic
Affairs website on the Faculty Development and Resources
webpage (http://provost.uncc.edu/Faculty).
Recommendation
Responsible Unit(s)
Status
d. Offer and publicize University-wide events such as
Campus Safety Awareness Month and National Crime
Victim’s Rights Week to raise awareness of safety
issues.
Risk Management,
Safety, and Security;
Police and Public
Safety
These annual events are held at various times throughout
the year.
e. Maintain a link to Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police
Department community crime information along with
safety tips for off-campus students.
Police and Public
Safety; Dean of
Students
Links to the University area crime information system
remain on both the PPS and Dean of Students’ websites
along with safety tips for off-campus residents. A safety
accreditation process for area apartment complexes is
being considered, and the Committee endorses its
development.
Police and Public Safety continues to offer self-defense
programs.
Police and Public Safety, the Counseling Center, the Office
of the Dean of Students, and other departments present
campus safety and security issues in SOAR, graduate
student orientation, and international student orientation.
f.
Offer training programs in self-defense.
Police and Public
Safety
g. Address campus safety and security issues through
Dean of Students;
materials and presentations in summer orientation,
Graduate School;
graduate student orientation, and orientations of other
Office of
groups.
International
Programs
2. The University should deliver comprehensive safety education information to parents and guardians and encourage families to discuss this
information with their students.
a. Communicate regularly to parents information related
Dean of Students
to campus safety, including relevant details of a campus (Parent and Family
safety plan, procedures for responding to campus
Programs)
emergencies, safety initiatives in place on or near
campus, and safety tips for parents to communicate to
their sons and daughters.
These activities are ongoing. The Dean of Students Office
and Police and Public Safety co-present a session related
to campus conduct and safety for students during each
freshman and transfer SOAR program. The Dean of
Students Office provides information on campus safety to
parents during each freshman SOAR parent session. Safety
information is included in SOAR resource bags provided to
students.
16
Recommendation
Responsible Unit(s)
Status
The NinerNation Family website has not yet been updated
to include emergency information for students. The
Committee recommends that a description of emergency
information and protocols information be included. The
Office of Parent & Family Services publicizes a monthly
“Relatively Speaking” electronic newsletter sent to
parents/family members which has periodically included
safety information.
3. The University should make safety education available to campus visitors, including camp and conference attendees.
a. Provide relevant safety education materials to camp and Conference and
conference guests
Events Planning
b. Maintain formal communication between Police and
Public Safety and planners, managers, and sponsors of
events where public visitors are present, such as athletic
events, concerts, political rallies, and commencements,
to ensure that safety and security concerns are built into
the process of event planning.
Assessing Potential Threats to Safety
Police and Public
Safety; Conference
Services
Conference and Events Planning is including safety
information in contracts. Safety guidelines for self-review
for conference planning have been developed. Risk
Management Safety and Security work with Police and
Public Safety and Facilities Management to ensure that
safety considerations are included in public event planning.
Formal communication about safety is built into the event
planning process. Safety and security plans for football
games have been developed by Police and Public Safety.
4. The University should maintain effective protocols for identifying and responding to students, staff, faculty, and visitors who may pose a
threat to themselves or others.
a. Maintain an Involuntary Protective Withdrawal Policy
to provide options for assessment and separation for
students who may pose a significant threat of harm to
Dean of Students;
Legal Affairs
University Policy 408(formerly Policy Statement #122) ,
which describes the Involuntary Protective Withdrawal
Policy, was revised in light of directives from the Office of
Civil Rights, eliminating “threats to self” from the list of
17
Recommendation
Responsible Unit(s)
themselves or others.
conditions under which the policy can be invoked.
b. Develop and maintain formal operating procedures of
the Campus Behavioral Intervention Team (CBIT) for
intervening with individuals who may pose a threat of
harm to self or others on campus.
Dean of Students
c. Educate the campus community in the use of the online
reporting procedure (using the Maxient software
package) to report and CBIT to track information about
students who are potential threats to their safety or the
safety of others.
Dean of Students
d. Maintain procedures and practices for identifying and
responding to potential threats to campus safety posed
by employees.
Human Resources;
Academic Affairs;
Legal Affairs
e. Develop a process by which student ID photos can be
shared electronically with appropriate offices, such as
Dean of Students and Housing and Residence Life.
Auxiliary Services;
Legal Affairs;
Information and
Technology Services;
Dean of Students
Auxiliary Services;
Legal Affairs;
Information and
Technology Services
f.
Limit public electronic access of student directory
information to email addresses; other directory
information should be made readily available only to
individuals within the University network.
g. Maintain a University policy addressing workplace
Status
The general policies of the Campus Behavioral Intervention
Team are outlined in University Policy 408 but formal
operating procedures for CBIT have not yet been
developed. The Committee recommends that these
procedures be developed, using best practices in behavioral
intervention teams as benchmarks.
A “NinerCare” resource folder was created in summer
2011, 7500 folders were ordered and distributed campuswide to faculty/staff in the Fall 2011. The “NinerCare”
website (http:ninercare.uncc.edu) was launched. This site
includes an online mechanism for reporting behaviors of
concern and provides an explanation of what happens to a
report after it is submitted.
This is being addressed with substantive changes to
University Policy 101.17, which is under review.
Definitions of behavior have been expanded in the updated
policy. A formalized reporting process will be developed
upon final approval of the revised policy.
This recommendation is being reviewed. In the meantime,
the Dean of Students Office has been provided with a form
from the ID Office that can be used on a case-by-case basis
to request photo IDs upon approval by Business Affairs.
Legal Affairs has approved this interim measure.
This recommendation is under review by Legal Affairs.
Legal Affairs; Human University Policy 101.17 is being revised to include
18
Recommendation
violence prevention, including information for victims
of domestic violence.
Responsible Unit(s)
Status
Resources
definitions of workplace violence, information regarding
accommodations for victims of workplace violence, and
resources for assistance in obtaining protective orders for
employees.
5. The University should take reasonable steps to identify and respond to individuals visiting or working on campus, including vendors,
contractors, and event attendees, who may represent a threat to members of the campus community.
a. Require criminal background checks for contractors
and vendors, particularly those who have access to
residence halls and other potentially sensitive facilities.
Legal Affairs; Vice
Chancellor for
Business Affairs
The Office of Legal Affairs is currently crafting policy
language to require vendors who have services that are
deemed as sensitive (e.g., contact with minors, access to
confidential information) to complete a criminal
background check.
6. The University should perform background checks for all faculty and staff positions, including student employees, as well as for prospective
students whose applications suggest possible safety concerns.
a. Require a criminal background check for applicants for
undergraduate admission who indicate significant
lengths of unexplained time period (three months of
more) on their applications.
Academic Affairs;
Legal Affairs; Dean
of Students; Office of
Admissions
This GA guideline has been shared with undergraduate
admissions, who are considering applications on a case-bycase basis.
b. Check against the University’s internal student judicial
database all applicants who have previously attended
UNC Charlotte and are applying for readmission or
graduate admission and who answer “yes” to any of the
six campus safety questions on the application.
Dean of Students;
Registrar’s Office;
Graduate School
The Registrar’s Office has been given access to the Maxient
conduct system and is checking the University conduct
database when an applicant for readmission answers
affirmatively to any of the 6 campus safety questions or has
previous judicial holds history within Banner. The
Graduate School indicates that this process would be
cumbersome for personnel and is working with the Dean of
Students Office to clarify their procedures. The Committee
recommends that The Dean of Students Office and Office of
Legal Affairs update the criminal background threshold
document to include University conduct issues to allow
19
Recommendation
Responsible Unit(s)
Status
individual admissions officers leeway to clear applicants
without sending them through the Pre-Admission Safety
Review.
c. Maintain language on applications for admission to
prevent unnecessary background checks, to require
identification of unexplained gaps in education and
employment history, and to state the requirement that
criminal charges occurring after application but before
matriculation be reported.
Legal Affairs;
Undergraduate
Admissions;
Graduate School
This process is currently ongoing. UNC General
Administration is considering a change to the campus
safety questions. Representatives from Legal Affairs, Dean
of Students Office, Undergraduate Admissions, Graduate
Admissions, and the Registrar’s Office met to discuss
feedback to GA regarding changes in language.
d. Manage background checks for student applicants for
admission and develop and maintain the student
conduct judicial database.
Dean of Students
This requirement is in place.
e. Screen student employee applicants through the student
judicial conduct database to ensure that applicants have
not been found responsible for a serious violation of the
Student Code of Conduct.
Dean of Students;
Human Resources
f.
Dean of Students
This requirement is in place. The Student Employment
Coordinator in HR has Maxient access and checks student
employment applications against the Maxient student
conduct database for issues that may be an issue with the
student’s employment.
New recommendation for 2012-13.
Create a certification process, managed by the Dean of
Students, which will clear students to study abroad and
will allow conduct issues from any prior university to
be reported when a student applies to transfer to UNC
Charlotte.
g. Require employees to notify the Department of Human
Resources or Academic Affairs when charged and
convicted with a criminal offense other than a minor
Legal Affairs
This recommendation is being addressed by the
Background Check Working Group. The Committee will
monitor this recommendation annually.
20
Recommendation
Responsible Unit(s)
Status
h. Provide training to supervisors via LEAD on
appropriate positions and work tasks for student
employees, highlighting how to supervise student
employees who are performing work which would give
them access to financial information, personnel
information, access to student areas, or significant
authority over or influence with other students.
Human Resources;
Legal Affairs
A revision to the LEAD program is complete. Policy is to be
reviewed by Legal Affairs.
i.
Require that temporary agencies perform current
criminal background checks on persons assigned for
work at the University.
Human Resources
This requirement is in place. The Committee will monitor
this recommendation annually.
j.
Perform criminal background checks for Resident
Assistants prior to employment. Evaluate the feasibility
of conducting criminal background checks for other
student employees who have access to student room
keys.
Housing and
Residential Life;
Human Resources;
Academic Affairs;
Risk Management,
Safety and Security
This recommendation is being addressed by the
Background Check Working Group. The Committee will
monitor this recommendation annually.
traffic violation.
Mental Health Promotion
7. The Counseling Center should have the resources necessary to provide services available to all students who need help and to provide those
services in a coordinated manner with other departments.
a. Maintain, through a case manager in the Counseling
Center, a streamlined process for follow-up of students
who have been referred to on- or off-campus mental
health, substance abuse, or relationship violence
Counseling Center;
Student Health
Center
A case manager has been employed at the Counseling
Center since 2009. The position has recently become
vacant but a search is underway.
21
Recommendation
Responsible Unit(s)
Status
treatment resources or who have presented in crisis, as
appropriate. Coordinate referrals.
b. Offer group counseling in the Counseling Center on
Counseling Center
The Counseling Center group counseling program includes
relationship issues and transitions to meet the needs of
a variety of groups to meet these needs.
a diverse student body.
c. Ensure the availability of adequate Counseling Center
Counseling Center
This ratio is being maintained with the addition of a fullstaff by using general benchmarking guidelines that
time counselor for 2012-13, with funds provided by an
suggest a 1:2000 staff-to-student ratio.
approved Student Health fee increase.
d. Maintain Counseling Center crisis response procedures Counseling Center
These procedures are in place.
and engage in ongoing evaluation of the efficacy of
crisis response.
e. Maintain collaborative relationships between the
Counseling Center
This requirement is in place.
Counseling Center and other campus departments,
especially the Student Health Center, so that continuityof-care issues can be adequately addressed. Assess
periodically.
8. The Counseling Center and Student Health Center should provide educational programs to the campus community about relevant mental
health issues.
a. Offer programs to educate the community about its
services, and market counseling services in ways that
reduce stigma associated with counseling.
b. In collaboration with the Counseling Center, offer
Wellness Promotion programs on mental health issues
and available services to the campus community.
c. Offer specific information in SOAR presentations and
on the Niner Nation Family website to parents
regarding counseling and health services, including
wellness promotion activities.
Counseling Center
These programs are in place.
Counseling Center;
Student Health
Center
Counseling Center;
Student Health
Center; Dean of
Students
These programs are in place.
The Counseling Center presents a program at SOAR for
parents that includes information about transition to
college for students and family members as well as
counseling and wellness services.
22
Recommendation
Responsible Unit(s)
Status
9. The Student Health Center should maintain programs that address the mental health needs of the students using its services.
a. Publicize mental health services, including psychiatric
services, available in the Student Health Center.
Student Health
Center
This requirement is in place.
b. Ensure the availability of adequate psychiatric services Student Health
Current ratio of staff is slightly below what is
in the Student Health Center by using general
Center
recommended. The Student Health Center psychiatrist
benchmarking guidelines that suggest 2 hours of
reports that available psychiatric resources are adequate to
psychiatric services per 1,000 students per week.
meet current demand.
c. Maintain Student Health Center protocols to ensure
Student Health
These protocols are in place.
continuity of care between medical and mental health
Center; Counseling
providers and the Counseling Center.
Center
d. Maintain Student Health Center protocols to follow up
Student Health
These protocols are in place.
with and provide support to students who are referred
Center
off-campus for mental health concerns.
e. Maintain a system in the Student Health Center for
Student Health
Data collection processes are in place.
collecting data on utilization of services by students for Center
mental health concerns.
f. Provide student health insurance information and
Student Health
This requirement is in place.
guidelines for inquiring about coverage provided by
Center; Counseling
other insurance plans to students referred off campus
Center
by the Counseling Center and the Student Health
Center.
10. The University should maintain an effective assistance program for employees who need help with psychological, interpersonal, substance
abuse or related concerns.
a. Maintain an effective Employee Assistance Program
Human Resources
A new EAP vendor (ComPsych GuidanceResources®) was
for staff and faculty.
selected. This EAP offers significantly more assistance to
employees who may be experiencing personal problems
that impact their performance or who are victims of crime
or violence.
11. The University should maintain formal Memoranda of Understanding with local health and mental health agencies.
23
Recommendation
Responsible Unit(s)
Status
a. Continue to work with the Behavioral Health Center at Counseling Center;
Informal protocols are established and followed by the
CMC-Randolph to establish protocols for ensuring
Student Health
Counseling Center. CMC-Randolph will not agree to a
continuity of care for students who have been treated
Center; Legal Affairs more formal Memorandum of Understanding.
for mental health concerns.
b. Maintain a formal Memorandum of Understanding with Counseling Center;
A formal Memorandum of Understanding is in place. The
Presbyterian Hospital for students with mental health
Student Health
Committee will monitor this arrangement annually.
concerns.
Center
12. The University should maintain clear procedures and policies for communicating with parents of students who receive mental health
services.
a. Provide to parents information regarding health and
Counseling Center;
This information is communicated during parent
counseling services policies including policies
Student Health
orientation.
addressing the disclosure of student-patient information Center; Dean of
to parents.
Students
Substance Abuse and Relationship Violence Prevention
13. Recognizing the strong relationship between alcohol and drug abuse and interpersonal violence, the University should maintain a
comprehensive alcohol and drug abuse prevention program for students and maintain effective protocols to respond to students in violation of
campus drug and alcohol policies.
a. Provide substance abuse education programs and
market wellness-related programs to students.
Student Health
Center
These programs are ongoing and will be enhanced in 201213, when a new Substance Abuse Specialist is hired in the
Center for Wellness Promotion.
The alcohol purchase study is conducted annually. The
summary of this year’s study is attached to this report. The
Committee will explore whether this study should continue
and, if so, how often it will be conducted.
b. Collaborate with the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Drug Free Department of
Coalition to advocate for compliance with alcohol
Criminal Justice and
purchase and consumption laws by offering training
Criminology; Student
and providing data to stores and bars selling or serving Health Center
alcohol in the University area.
14. To address issues of relationship violence and sexual assault, the University should maintain a program educating the campus community
on healthy interpersonal relationships and effective protocols for responding to incidents of relationship violence and sexual.
a. Offer programs to educate students on relationship
Wellness Promotion
A health educator whose focus is relationship violence
24
Recommendation
Responsible Unit(s)
Status
health and the prevention of relationship violence,
coordinate protocols for response to incidents of
relationship violence and sexual assault, and coordinate
aid to victims of relationship violence and sexual
assault.
PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE
Department (Student
Health Center)
prevention has been hired in the Center for Wellness
Promotion, and an Interpersonal Violence Resource
Committee has been formed and is meeting monthly.
Alliances have been created with local agencies and nearby
universities.
Emergency Planning and Infrastructure
15. The University should, on a regular basis, conduct tabletop exercises and use other strategies for training, rehearsing, and improving
emergency plans.
a. Conduct annual emergency response exercises within
colleges, departments, and other administrative units,
including the Crisis Management Team, to practice and
evaluate emergency plans.
b. Continue to provide specific information and awareness
training on preparing for and responding to an activeshooter event.
Risk Management,
Safety, and Security
A multi-year emergency exercise matrix has been
developed that maps out an exercise schedule for the
coming years. Police and Public Safety report that campus
lockdown procedures have been developed.
Risk Management,
Information about active shooter response is on the PPS
Safety, and Security
website and is available on the Campus Safety website.
“Shots Fired” and other videos are available on the
Human Resources training page, the Police and Public
Safety and Campus Safety websites.
16. All campus facilities--including residence halls, parking lots, academic buildings, athletic venues, libraries--should maintain effective
security plans.
a. Develop and maintain a basic security plan for each
campus facility, including those located off-campus.
Off-campus facilities should coordinate their plans with
Police and Public Safety or their contracted security
provider for implementation. Safety plans for new
facilities should be created before a building is built or
Risk Management,
Safety, and Security
Identifying building safety coordinators, defining their
responsibilities, and developing training programs are
works in progress. A small working group will be convened
to develop position descriptions and a concise description
of responsibilities. Security plans for the Center City
building has been implemented. A security plan for the
25
Recommendation
Responsible Unit(s)
acquired.
b. Develop centralized policies and procedures for
requesting, acquiring, maintaining, and monitoring
surveillance cameras, panic buttons, intrusion alarms
and other safety equipment in all new and existing
buildings, parking lots, and other facilities.
c. Equip all non-residential buildings with card access
locks on primary entrances and ensure that these are
integrated into a central system that allows remote
locking, unlocking, and appropriate access.
Electronic and
Physical Security
Committee
Facilities
Management
Status
football stadium is complete, and a plan for managing
security at the new on-campus Lynx station is in
development.
A working group on surveillance cameras has developed a
policy that is nearing draft form.
FM updated the Committee on needs for electronic access
and remote locking. Cost for installations, repairs, and
retrograde upfits to complete the project are now estimated
at $800,000.
17. The University should work with off-campus facilities that house significant numbers of students and with other relevant community
groups to discuss safety and security concerns and to develop strategies for increasing public safety.
a. Attend quarterly meetings with off-campus housing
Dean of Students;
These meetings are being attended by University staff.
managers and owners, with special meetings scheduled Police and Public
during periods of increased criminal activity.
Safety
b. Participate in meetings with University City Partners
Police and Public
These meetings are being attended by University staff.
and other appropriate community organizations.
Safety
18. Campus buildings, parking decks, and other outdoor areas where security is an issue as identified by crime data or perception should have
up-to-date security systems and devices.
a. Maintain design standards to ensure that safety
Facilities
Facilities Management reports that new design standards
concerns such as lighting are incorporated into plans
Management
have been established to be more energy efficient while
for new construction and renovations and implement
maintaining security. Some lights are on sensors and
specific lighting projects or other changes (such as
timers.
painting) that would enhance the sense of security in
facilities such as parking decks.
b. Continue student led activities on campus (e.g., SGA
Student Government
The SGA Safety Walk took place this spring, but the
Campus Safety Walk) and appropriately fund solutions Association;
Committee has not yet seen recommendations from SGA.
26
Recommendation
to identified problems.
Responsible Unit(s)
Status
Facilities
Management
Recommendations from the 2010-11 walk were also not
identified. The Committee encourages SGA to recommit to
the Safety Walk so students can continue to have a voice in
campus safety recommendations.
c. Ensure the accessibility of emergency (“blue light”)
Facilities
Funds for this recommendation were made available with
phones, especially for individuals with mobility
Management; Office
end-of-year funds in 2012. Facilities Management reports
impairment.
of Disability Services that design specifications now include considering
accessibility of emergency phones when they are installed.
19. The campus should maintain and evaluate a system of shuttle buses and escorts to assist with transportation for students, faculty, and staff
after dark and at all times for persons with disabilities or who park in remote areas.
a. Monitor the effectiveness of the Safe Ride program and Accessibility
SafeRide continues to support on-campus transportation
recommend modifications as appropriate.
Committee; Parking
for those with mobility impairments. The after-hours pointand Transportation
to-point escort service that has historically been provided
Services; Police and
to all students is being replaced by a 24-hour campus
Public Safety
shuttle service. The Committee supports this change as it
makes better use of Police and Public Safety resources
during evening hours. The Committee will review these
changes in its next report.
Law Enforcement
20. The Department of Police and Public Safety should maintain appropriate accreditation, up-to-date equipment, and trained staff.
a. Maintain full staffing of Police and Public Safety;
engage in strategic planning process to determine the
appropriate staffing model for PPS going forward;
review levels of staffing in light of enrollment growth,
football, light rail, and other related to expansion of
campus programs and facilities.
b. Complete the process by which the Department of
Police and Public Safety will meet standards for the
Risk Management,
Safety, and Security;
Police and Public
Safety
Police and Public Safety are engaged in a strategic
planning process which includes an assessment of the
current staffing model and a projection of future needs.
Police and Public
Safety
PPS continues to pursue CALEA accreditation, utilizing a
phased-in systematic approach to meet CALEA standards.
27
Recommendation
Responsible Unit(s)
Status
Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement
This is expected to be a multi-year process.
(CALEA) accreditation.
c. Employ the principles of Community Policing tailored
Police and Public
A community policing model has been developed and
to the unique demands of the UNC Charlotte campus.
Safety
deployed in PPS.
21. The University should maintain appropriate mutual aid agreements, Jurisdiction Extension Agreements, and Memoranda of
Understanding with local first-responder agencies.
a. Create cooperation agreements between UNC Charlotte
Police and Public Safety and other college and
university police departments in the region.
Police and Public
Safety
The University continues to operate under the Regional
Law Enforcement Mutual Aid agreement, which sets forth
the terms under which county, municipal, and university
law enforcement agencies can request assistance from
other participating agencies.
b. Maintain and periodically review and update contracts
Legal Affairs; Risk
The University continues to operate under the provisions of
with CMPD, CFD, Council of Governments, and other Management, Safety, two contracts with CMPD, one defining the mutual
agencies as appropriate.
and Security
jurisdiction area and another committing to the provision
of mutual aid.
c. Participate actively in periodic meetings of UNC
Police and Public
Periodic meetings of campus police chiefs are being held at
system law enforcement agencies to share best
Safety
General Administration under the leadership of Brent
practices.
Herron, Associate Vice President of Campus Safety and
Emergency Operations, and communication among
General Administration and campus police departments in
ongoing.
22. The University should maintain a system to effectively and quickly identify crime incident locations, both for first responders and to aid in
crime analysis.
a. Maintain a system of geocoding for campus features,
e.g., lighting fixtures, emergency phones, and
buildings, to aid with crime analysis and incident
tracking.
b. Maintain a Master Campus Address file with clearlymarked streets, buildings, and other structures as part of
Facilities
Management
Facilities
Management
Campus geocoding is complete and assists first responders.
The geocoding system is not currently being used to track
incidents for analysis. The Committee will reconsider
whether that analysis will be useful to the University.
Police and Public Safety report that the master address
system has been helpful to expedite first responders when
28
Recommendation
Responsible Unit(s)
the Campus Master Plan.
Emergency Communication
Status
they are called to campus for an emergency.
23. The University should maintain effective protocols for communication with the campus community following a crime on or near campus.
a. Continue to exercise the Campus Warning Network at
least once per semester.
Risk Management,
Safety, and Security
b. Develop policies to encourage or require students to
sign up for the campus texting service or intentionally
waive this notification as part of the class registration
process.
Academic Affairs;
Registrar;
Information
Technology Services
The PIER system is tested once each month by sending text
messages to core emergency response personnel and
selected University leaders. The audible emergency sirens
are tested annually. The review of campus alerts and early
notification noted in the previous Committee report has
resulted in a project to migrate contact data for students,
faculty, and staff from the Banner system to PIER. This
project is expected to enable the PIER system to reach
more University constituents in the event of a real
emergency as well as afford flexibility in conducting
periodic testing for the University through this system.
There are two different efforts underway that will need to
be synchronized. The first is the interface between Banner
and Pier that automatically pushes information into Pier
and keeps it refreshed. That project is well underway and
is close to completion.
The second effort is to collect student cell phone
information on a regular basis through the Password
Change process. That code will be in production by the
end of June.
Still to be completed is refreshed cell phone data into
Pier. There are efforts underway to determine the best way
29
Recommendation
Responsible Unit(s)
Status
to accomplish this.
A new aspect of this recommendation is to train dispatch
personnel in the procedures for using “DeafHelp,” a
program that uses Outlook email and text to send alerts to
individuals with hearing impairments.
c. Maintain the ability for instructors to communicate
from classrooms in case of emergencies through
Classroom Support. Provide training to all classroom
instructors and to Classroom Support personnel on the
use of SMART Classroom technology to facilitate
communication in case of emergencies.
Classroom Support;
Academic Affairs
d. Support the development of a mobile application to
assist first responders and evacuees in the case of an
emergency building evacuation.
Police and Public
Safety; Computing
and Informatics
a. Develop effective systems to integrate communication
across campus in case of an emergency.
Risk Management,
Safety, and Security
Classroom support has started the roll-out of the RSS
popup software for all signage and teaching stations. They
are working with PPS to iron out the details on having an
intercom monitoring system at PPS. They have trained their
staff to help faculty on emergency requests. They will also
present information to faculty on how to use the system at
the beginning of the academic year via email.
An application is in development in Computer Science that
will assist first responders in understanding how buildings
are populated to facilitate evacuation and can direct
individuals to the quickest evacuation route. The Committee
is requesting funds to further this development.
24. The University should maintain redundant and interoperable emergency notification systems that integrate into the National Incident
Management System.
As a result of the audit of interoperable communications
noted in the previous Safety Committee report, the
hardware and software associated with the 800 and 400
MHz radios used by Campus Police, Res Life and Housing,
Student Activity Center, Facilities Maintenance,
Advancement, and Purchasing are being upgraded. This
effort includes relocating the base antennae to eliminate
dead spots, refreshing the aging server hardware, and
30
Recommendation
Responsible Unit(s)
Status
upgrading the controller software to the current release.
Additionally, new “Talk Groups” will be created to better
align this communication medium with current work units
within some departments. This project is expected to be
completed on or before June 30, 2012.
RECOVERY
Resources for Victims and Families
25. The University should maintain a plan for communicating and offering counseling services to crime victims and victims’ families.
a. Employ a plan to communicate with victims and
victims’ family that will be implemented along with the
University emergency response plan.
Risk Management,
Safety, and Security;
Dean of Students;
Counseling Center;
Student Health
Center; Housing and
Residence Life
A draft of a plan for the deployment of a Family Assistance
Center in case of a campus emergency has been written.
Student Affairs personnel are working with Risk
Management, Safety, and Security to develop a final
document outlining the plan.
b. Continue to provide support and information to student
victims of crime and, and when appropriate, their
families.
Dean of Students;
Counseling Center
c. Assist employee crime victims and their families
through the Employee Assistance Program for
employees.
Human Resources
d. Participate in regular meetings of UNC system
counseling center directors to share best practices and
discuss mutual aid in the event of an incident.
Counseling Center
The Dean of Students office reaches out to student crime
victims notifying them of available resources on campus,
including the Counseling Center. The Counseling Center
works with victims and others who are impacted by crime
and violence.
The new EAP vendor, ComPsych GuidanceResources®,
offers significantly more assistance to employees who may
be experiencing personal problems that impact their
performance or who are victims of crime or violence.
Regular meetings are held at UNC General Administration.
Counseling Center directors meet regularly at GA and at
other sites, and sometimes including private universities.
Informal mutual aid commitments are being developed.
31
Recommendation
Responsible Unit(s)
Status
General Administration sponsored a day-long threat
assessment training program for all counselors in the UNC
system. UNC Charlotte was one of two host sites for this
program.
32
X.
Appendix A: UNC Charlotte crime data report
Department of Police and Public Safety
Crime Statistics
Paul C. Friday, PhD.
Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology
GENERAL CRIME CHARACTERISTICS ON CAMPUS
UNC Charlotte Police handled 414 incidents in 2011
There were 66 additional calls for service.
A total of 853 citations were handed out to 753 persons,
38. 5% to students and 61.5% to non-students
253 warning tickets were issued.
CRIMINAL INCIDENTS

Property crime offenses constitute 69.3% of all incidents handled by UNC Charlotte
Department of Public safety in 2011.
o Larceny from a building is the largest single offense reported and constitutes
21.3% of all reports (n=88).
o Vandalism is the second largest property offense reported and constitutes 12.6%
of all offenses reported (n=52).

Violent personal crimes represent 5.3% of the 2012 incidents reported.
o There were 11 simple assault cases in 2011 (down 45% from 20 in 2010).
o There were 6 robberies – up from 1 in 2010.

Drug and alcohol violations represent 8.9% of all criminal incidents on campus.
o There were 11 Driving While Impaired (DWI) arrests.
o There were 10 additional alcohol violations.
33
o There were 16 drug/ drug paraphernalia and other drug related charges.

There was one reported rape in 2011, the same as in 2010.

“Other crime” including such things as trespass, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest
constitute 16.4% of all criminal offenses in 2011.
CITATIONS
Citations were primarily vehicle related – the greatest number, 259 (30.4%) were for
expired registrations.
Table 1. Citations, 2011
2011 YEAR TOTAL
Speeding
68
7.97%
Seat Belt
42
4.92%
DWI
11
1.29%
NOL
65
7.62%
DWLR
63
7.39%
Expired Registration
259 30.36%
Inspection
35
4.10%
Unsafe Movement
7
0.82%
Stop Light/Sign
75
8.79%
No Insurance
34
3.99%
Alcohol (Passenger)
8
0.94%
Misdemeanor (other)
186 21.81%
Total
853 100.00%
Nearly 2/3 of the citations were to non-students.
34
Figure 1. Student and non-students citations
38.51%
61.49%
Students
Non-Students
TRENDS

The number of criminal offenses on campus decreased 35.7% from a high of 644 in 2010
to 414 in 2011.
o There was an additional 69 calls for service that did not result in a report – such
calls were down 47.2% from 125 in 2010.

This reverses the upward trend that began in 2008 and is the lowest reported number of
offenses since 2003.
35
Figure 2. Total Incidents Reported to UNC Charlotte PPS
800
700
644
Incidents
500
532
531
513
541
535
529
484
400
414
300
200
100
Students (in 1,000)
600
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
9
7
5
3
1
-1
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Incidents

Students
Linear (Incidents)
Part I major crimes such as rape, robbery, aggravated assault and arson are down 19.6%
from 2010 to 2011.
o Arson dropped to 0 from 6.
o Robbery increased from 1 to 6 during the same period.
o Burglary (forced and non-forced) increased from 18-22 (22.2%).

Part II offenses such as simple assault, larceny, drug offenses are down 47.7% between
2010 and 2011.
o Larceny from a building, the largest single offense reported, dropped 15.4% from
104 in 2010 to 88 in 2011.
o Drug and alcohol offenses are down 57% from 86 to 37.
o Vandalism decreased 35% from 80 to 52.
o Larceny from a vehicle decreased 55.2% while larceny of auto parts and
accessories increased 200% from 4 to 12.
o Motor vehicle theft is down 40% from 10 to 6.
36

All property offenses are down 26.2% over 2010.

Violent personal crimes are down 26.7% over 2010.
o However, there were 6 robberies on campus in 2011 compared with 1 in 2010.
o Assaults are down 48.1% from 27 in 2010 to 14 in 2011

Drug and alcohol offenses are down 57% from 2010.
o The largest decrease is in alcohol related violations – 10 in 2011 compared with
29 in 2010.
o DWI cases are about the same as in 2010 – 11 cases.
There was only one reported sex-related crime in 2011 compared with 10 in 2010.
Figure 3. Incident Trends 2007-2011
250
200
Reported Incidents

151
149
150
139
133
123
104
88
100
76
76
50
35
45
27
58
36
80 81 80
52
26
22
0
Violent
Larceny/Bldg
2007
2008
2009
2010
Larceny/Veh.
Vandalism
2011
37
Figure 4. Incident Trends 2010-2011
100
90
Reported Incidents
80
70
60
50
50
47
40
29
30
20
26
16
10
10
10
11
0
Drug
Alcohol
2010
DWI
All Traffic
2011
CONCLUSIONS
UNC Charlotte Police and Public Safety perform a number of university community
activities ranging from response to major criminal complaints, misdemeanor activity and
traffic regulation and related citations and warnings.
The number of major crimes reported on campus have dropped a significant 37.6% over the
prior year. Part I (major) crimes decreased by19.6%, and Part II crimes decreased by 47.7%.
This parallels new department organization and prevention activities, especially as they relate
to auto theft and thefts from autos.
Campus Police and Public Security (PPS) appear not to focus their traffic enforcement on
students. This is reflected in the finding that nearly two-thirds of the citations in 2011 were
issued to non-students. The large numbers of warning tickets suggest that PPS use traffic
stops as learning experiences to all who are members of the campus community or who are
visitors.
38
XI.
Appendix B: Student Campus Safety Survey Report
Student Campus Safety Survey Report, 2012
Paul C. Friday, PhD
Department of Criminal Justice
I. Introduction
This is a report on the results of a campus-wide student survey conducted in April and May 2012
designed to elicit student feelings, perspectives on their safety on and off campus. The survey
also includes self-reported victimization. It is one of four subcommittee reports.
II. Methodology
All UNC Charlotte students were offered the opportunity to respond to an anonymous survey
through the university’s email network using CampusLabs (a student survey subscription service
of UNC Charlotte). Each prospective subject received an individual embedded link in the email
invitation that requested their participation in the survey. The individual embedded link allowed
subjects to access the survey. Each person not responding was sent up to two reminder emails
with links one week and two weeks after the initial invitation.
Characteristics of Respondents
1

Total respondents: 2,622 (10.9% of population1); 2,456 completed the entire survey.
(Gives 95% confidence that findings are within ±1.81%.)

Demographics:
o 82.7% Full Time – 17.3% part-time
o 72.0% Undergraduates – 24.7% Graduate, 2.9% Post-Bac, 0.3% ELTI
o 65.0% female – 34.7% male, 0.2%transgender
o 70.5% white,
o 57.4% single (including divorced),
o 86.1% N.C. resident student,
o Mean years at UNC Charlotte: 2.26
 63.9% have been on campus for two years or less
Total Student Enrollment 23,951
39
o 7.0% international students
o 21.0% live on campus; 20.4% live within one mile of campus
 Over half (58.5%) live more than a mile from campus.
o 65.2% white, 13.4% African American
Table 2. Race of survey respondents
Frequency Percent
Valid
Valid
Percent
African/AfricanAmerican
352
13.4
14.3
Asian/Asian-American
206
7.9
8.4
Hispanic
108
4.1
4.4
Native American
15
.6
.6
White, Caucasian
1602
61.1
65.2
Other
94
3.6
3.8
Mixed race
79
3.0
3.2
2456
93.7
100.0
166
6.3
2622
100.0
Total
Missing System
Total
III. Summary Conclusions and Recommendations
Findings of the Student Campus Safety Survey suggest the following:
1. Students feel much safer in 2012 than they did in 2009. Both male and female students
have increased their feelings of safety on campus since 2008.
2. Students feel safe on campus during daylight hours and while in class but not at night
going to and from classes or the library.
3. Regardless of the situation or location, students feel safer on campus in 2012 than they
did in 2009.
4. Students feel most unsafe on campus after dark, specifically, while walking alone to and
from residence halls, walking alone to parking decks and parking lots, walking alone on
campus, and waiting alone for public transportation.
5. Students identified parking decks and parking lots as specific areas of concern on
campus.
40
6. A very small percentage of students have been victim of a crime on campus. 4.0%
indicate that they had ever been a victim on this campus. This is down from 5.8% in
2009. 1.6% indicate that the victimization was this academic year.
7. Majority of crimes against students on campus involved the theft of personal property.
8. A greater proportion of students in 2012 than in 2009 feel that the UNC Charlotte police
can ensure public safety.
o 55.4% feel they can ensure safety well and only 13.0% feel they cannot do it well.
This compares with 37.1% and 1.6% respectively in 2009.
9. There has been an increase from 16.4% to 23.1% of students seeing UNC Charlotte
police on foot from 2009 to 2012.
10. There has not been any major change in the percent of students who see the police on
bicycle or in cars.
Observations after reading all of the recommendations:

A number of the responses suggest that the campus community does not know the
quality and training of our police – this message needs to be delivered to the
community.

A number of responses indicated that students did not know that we actually have a
master safety plan. Both the existence and some details of the plan should be
disseminated.

Some indicate that they do not get the email or text messages. Some effort should be
made to reaffirm how they can get on the distribution lists.

Some indicated that they did not know the campus emergency number and suggested
that it be posted in parking decks, bus stops etc.

The notification of crimes on and near campus seems to be a double-edged sword –
students want to know but the number of messages they receive increases fear.
41
IV. Findings

78.6% feel safe on-campus
o 69.5% in 2009 and 61.4% felt safe in 2008

8.3% feel unsafe on-campus
o

10.8% in 2009 and 16.6% did not feel safe in 2008
21.6% of students feel safer now than they did their first year on campus
o 16.2% feel less safe
Overall Feelings of Safety
Figure 5. Overall Feelings of Safety on Campus 2008-2012
100
78.6
69.5
80
Percent
61.4
60
40
22.1
16.5
19.7
20
13.2
10.8 8.2
0
2008
2009
2012
42
Specific Feelings of Safety: Gender

78.6% feel safe on-campus.
These feelings vary significantly by gender, race and year on campus.
o 83.2% of male students feel safe; 76.3% of female students feel safe (p<.000)
Table 2 Overall feelings of safety by gender
Overall feeling of safety
Very unsafe
Count
Total
Total
0
29
1.2%
1.2%
.0%
1.2%
40
129
2
171
4.7%
8.2%
33.3%
7.0%
92
229
0
321
Percent 10.8% 14.5%
.0%
13.2%
943
3
1365
Percent 49.4% 59.8%
50.0%
56.1%
257
1
545
Percent 33.8% 16.3%
16.7%
22.4%
1577
6
2431
Percent 100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count
Neither safe nor unsafe Count
Very safe
Female Transgender
19
Percent
Reasonably safe
Male
10
Percent
Somewhat unsafe
Gender
Count
Count
Count
419
287
848
Changes in fear since 2008: Gender
While the overall proportion of both male and female students who feel unsafe on campus is
relatively small, female students are statistically significantly more likely than male students to
express feeling unsafe on campus (p <.000).

9.4% of females feel unsafe on campus; 13.0% in 2009 and 19.0% in 2008
(Significant decrease)
 71.6% feel safe; 63.9% safe in 2009 and 57.9% safe in 2008

5.9% of males feel unsafe on campus 6.1% in 2009 and 12.5% in 2008 (significant
decrease)
 83.3% 77.3% feel safe ; 77.3% in 2009 and 67.8% safe in 2008
43
Both male and female students have increased their feelings of
safety on campus since 2008.
Figure 6. Changes in Feelings of Safety by Gender 2008-2012
100.0
90.0
80.0
77.9 83.3
76.1
67.8
65
Percent
70.0
57.9
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
19
20.0
12.5
6.2
10.0
13.2 9.4
5.9
0.0
Safe
Male 08
Male 09
Unsafe
Male 12
Female 08
Female 09
Female 12
44
Specific Feelings of Safety: Race


Asian/Asian American students feel less safe than other students (p<.002).
80% of both White/Caucasian and African American students feel safe on campus.
Table 3. Overall feelings of safety by race/ethnicity
Overall feeling of
safety
Safe
Count
Race/Ethnicity
African/AfricanAmerican
Asian/AsianAmerican
Hispanic
Native
American
White,
Caucasian
Mixed
race
Other
Total
280
139
80
12
1269
70
60
1910
Percent
80.7%
67.5%
75.5%
85.7%
80.1%
74.5%
75.9%
78.6%
Neither Count
safe nor Percent
unsafe
44
46
19
0
184
18
10
321
12.7%
22.3%
17.9%
.0%
11.6%
19.1%
12.7%
13.2%
23
21
7
2
132
6
9
200
Percent
6.6%
10.2%
6.6%
14.3%
8.3%
6.4%
11.4%
8.2%
Count
347
206
106
14
1585
94
79
2431
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Unsafe Count
Total
Percent

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Proportionately more first year students (81.9%) feel safe compared with students having
come to campus five or more years (72.9%), p<.003.
Changes in fear since 2008: Race

All racial groups feel safer in 2012 than in 2008 or 2009 except Asian students.
45
Figure 7. Feelings of Safety by Race/Ethnicity 2008/2009
Native Amer
85.7
66.7
African Amer
59.6
Asian
10
20
30
40
50
65.5
75.5
67.5
68.4
54
0
80.1
70
62.5
Hispanic
80.7
76.2
65
White
83
60
70
80
90
Percent feel safe
Specific Feelings of Safety: Years at UNC Charlotte

Proportionately more first year students feel safe than students who have come to campus
five or more years
o 72.9% of students on campus five years or more feel safe compared with 81.9%
of students on campus for their first year
Table 4. Overall feelings of safety by years at UNC Charlotte
Years at UNC Charlotte
Overall feeling of safety
1
Safe
Count
% Percent
Neither
safe nor
unsafe
Count
Unsafe
Count
% Percent
% Percent
Total
Count
% Percent
2
3
5 or
more
4
794
480
81.9%
78.4%
119
79
12.3%
12.9%
56
53
51
19
26
205
5.8%
8.7%
12.0%
7.5%
11.4%
8.2%
969
612
424
255
229
2489
100.0%
314
200
74.1% 78.4%
59
36
13.9% 14.1%
167
Total
1955
72.9% 78.5%
36
329
15.7% 13.2%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
46
Specific Feelings of Safety: Academic Status

There is no statistically significant difference in feelings of safety by academic
status. ELTI students feel most safe.
Figure 8. Percent Feeling Safe on Campus by Academic Status 2008/2009
100
Percent
80
60
69.6
87.7
78.8
77.8
61.4
69.2
70.4
66.7
60
82.1 81.7
46.2
40
20
0
Graduate
Undergrad
2008

2009
ELTI
Post-Bac
2012
There is no statistically significant difference in feelings of safety by transfer
students and non-transfer students.
Specific Feelings of Safety: Location
Regardless of the situation or location, students feel safer on campus in 2012 than they did in 2009

94.0% of students feel safe on campus during daylight hours; 94.0% in 2009, 90.3% in
2008.

56.2% 64.8% feel somewhat to very unsafe after dark while walking alone on campus
64.8% in 2009, 74.9% in 2008
47
Table 5. Areas/Times and Feeling Relatively Safe on Campus, 2012 (2009)
On-Campus Activity
Safe
Neither
Unsafe
Areas/Times Feeling Relatively Safe
Walking alone during daylight hours
94.0%
(94.0%)
3.2% (2.7%)
2.7% (3.3%)
Waiting alone for public transportation during
daylight hours
93.2%
(92.2%)
4.7% (5.6%)
2.1% (2.2%)
Walking alone to campus residence hall during
daylight hours
89.5%
(87.9%)
7.4% (8.3%)
3.1% (3.8%)
While attending athletic events
86.7%
(84.1%)
11.0%
(12.6%)
2.3% (3.2%)
In a residence hall
83.1%
(77.9%)
11.9%
(16.1%)
5.0% (6.0%)
Walking alone in parking decks/lots during
daylight hours
Alone in classrooms
81.8%
(80.0%)
78.3%
(72.2%)
9.3% (8.4%)
8.9% (11.5%)
15.8%
(19.5%)
5.8% (8.3%)
Table 6. Areas/Times and Feeling Relatively Unsafe on Campus, 2012 (2009)
On-Campus Activity
Safe
Neither
Unsafe
Areas/Times Feeling Relatively Unsafe
Walking alone to campus residence hall after
dark
32.7%
(25.1%)
17.0%
(15.4%)
50.4%
(59.5%)
Walking alone on campus after dark
29.4%
(24.7%)
14.4%
(12.5%)
56.2%
(62.8%)
Waiting alone for public transportation after
dark
32.8%
(24.5%)
16.3%
(15.1%)
50.9%
(60.4%)
Walking alone in parking decks/lots after dark
27.7%
(22.6%)
13.7%
(12.6%)
58.6%
(64.8%)
Working in library stacks late at night
58.7%
(45.7%)
18.6%
(22.1%)
22.7%
(32.2%)
48

Students feel safe in the SAC and Student Union but those feeling unsafe in the SAC
during the day have increased now that there is less activity in the SAC and the student
union has opened. Therefore, they feel safer in the SAC at night when activity is more
likely.

Over 90% of students feel safe in the student union day or night.
Table 7 Feelings of safety in Student Activity Center and Student Union
On-Campus Activity
Safe
Neither
Unsafe
SAC during the day
58.2%
(92.6%)
24.4%
(5.6%)
17.4% (1.8%)
SAC at night
77.5%
(57.0%)
12.3%
(23.1%)
10.2%
(19.9%)
Student Union during the day*
91.1%
7.6%
1.3%
Student Union at night*
* Question not asked in 2009
96.5%
2.8%
0.7%
Feelings of Safety By Residence Hall
21% of students indicated that they lived on campus. Three questions were compared using the
students’ residence halls: Overall sense of safety, feeling of safety in the residence hall, and
feelings of safety walking to the residence hall during the day and at night. See Appendix I.
Looking only at residence halls with more than 25 students responding it was found that:

11.0% of Lynch Hall students who answered feel unsafe, overall. 11.1% of Oak Hall
residents and 9.1% of Sanford Hall residence feel, overall, unsafe.

8.1% of residents of Holshouser and 7.1% of Witherspoon residents who answered feel
unsafe walk to the halls during the day.

59.6% of Miltimore Hall residents who answered feel unsafe walking to the residence
hall at night.

59.5% of Holshouser residents feel unsafe walking there at night.

53.6% living in Greek Village feel unsafe walking at night.
49

50.9% living in Witherspoon feel unsafe walking to the residence at night.
Where Students Feel Unsafe
Students listed a number of locations where they were fearful for their safety. These
locations were, in general:

Parking decks – especially at night

Parking lots – especially at night

Walking paths from education buildings to dormitories and to parking decks. A few
walking areas were specifically mentioned – behind Storrs/Robinson toward East
Deck, ATM and the Prospector at night, walking to High Rise/Hunt Village area from
library, and walking from the library past Cone and also from the Student Union to
dormitory areas.
A total of 1,085 students listed locations where they felt unsafe. An attempt was made to code
them into general locations but not all were easy to pinpoint. Some over-lapped so it is important
that the university look at each of the comments (see Appendix II for all locations).
Table 8. Campus Locations Where Students are Fearful
Location
Valid
Frequency Percent
All decks
191
19.8
Parking lots in general
150
15.5
Walkways -wooded areas
99
10.2
Walking from classes-library to
lots/decks
82
8.5
East deck
62
6.4
High rise area -Hunt village- ROTC
54
5.6
West Deck
53
5.5
Around Rowe-Colvard-Cone-Library
50
5.2
Martin Village/Mary Alexander area
38
3.9
Around Belk Tower, Prospector,
Friday, Denny quad, Fretwell
37
3.8
Cone deck
34
3.5
50
North Deck -Lot 25
31
3.2
At ATMs
16
1.7
Union Deck
15
1.6
Behind Rowe, Robinson, Storrs - to
parking deck
12
1.2
Smith, Cameron, Burson, Scott
11
1.1
Anywhere after dark
11
1.1
Oak/Pine area
8
.8
Belk gym area
7
.7
Bus stops
5
.5
967
100.0
Total
Missing Not coded
118
System
1537
Total
1655
Total
2622
Reasons Students Feel Unsafe
775 students explained why they felt fearful in certain locations. 38.8% said their reason for
feeling unsafe was the absence or dimness of the lighting.

The second most cited reason (17.5%) was the reports of crimes on campus coming from
the police alerts or student rumors.

The next largest category of reason was the feeling that the location was secluded,
isolated or surrounded by greenery enabling potential predators to hide (13.8%)

13.6% mentioned the lack of visible security, i.e. the absence of police and or the absence
of blue lights (some indicated that the blue lights were not working).

There was also concern about non-students loitering around parking decks and other
walkway areas.
51
Table 9. Reasons for feeling unsafe
Valid
Frequency Percent Percent
Lighting
266
34.3
38.8
Reports about crime
120
15.5
17.5
Secluded, isolated ,trees, shrubs
95
12.3
13.8
No visible security or blue lights -blue
lights not working
93
12.0
13.6
Few other people around
57
7.4
8.3
Non-students loitering
39
5.0
5.7
Safe-Ride wait too long; location poor
9
1.2
1.3
Can't carry own weapon
4
.5
.6
Parking lot too faraway
3
.4
.4
686
88.5
100.0
89
11.5
775
100.0
Total
Missing Not Coded
Total
Student Perceptions of their Parents’ Fears

Student perceptions of their parents’ fears for their safety on campus are less than they
were in 2008 but slightly higher than in 2009. About one third believe their parents are
afraid, a third is neither afraid nor unafraid and a third are unafraid. 17% believe their
parents are very unafraid while 4% feel their parents are very afraid.
Table 10. Student perceptions of their parents’ fears
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Very unafraid
438
16.7
17.7
Somewhat unafraid
445
17.0
18.0
Neither afraid nor unafraid
749
28.6
30.3
Somewhat afraid
742
28.3
30.0
Very afraid
99
3.8
4.0
Total
2473
94.3
100.0
System missing
149
5.7
Total
2622
100.0
52
Figure 9. Perception of Parent Fears
100
90
80
70
Percent
60
50.5
39.7
50
40
31.5
34
28.9 30.3
22.9
30
35.7
26.6
20
10
0
Afraid
Neither
2008
2009
Unafraid
2012
Overall Rates of Victimization (on-campus)

3.9% (n=96) of respondents have, at one time, been a victim of a crime on this
campus; 5.8% in 2009 and 5.5% in 2008.
o 1.6% indicate that they had been a victim this academic year (2011-12).

Male students are significantly more likely to have been victims on campus than
female students (p<.003).
Table 11. Victimization on campus by gender
Have you ever been a
victim of a crime ON
THIS CAMPUS?
Yes Count
No
Gender
Male
Female
Transgender
Total
49
47
0
96
Percent
5.7%
2.9%
.0%
3.9%
Count
804
1550
6
2360
94.3%
97.1%
100.0%
96.1%
853
1597
6
2456
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Percent
Total Count
Percent
53
Victimization by type (on campus – not mutually exclusive categories)

69.8% of the 43 students who were victimized in 2011/12 reported property
offenses:
o
o
o
o

53.5% of property crimes involved theft of personal property.
25.6% of property crimes involved damage to personal property.
16.3% theft from campus room.
11.6% of property crimes involved theft from an automobile.
18.6% of those victimized in 2011/12 were victims of violent personal crimes:
o 9.3% of personal, violent crimes were assault/battery offenses.
o 4.7% were robberies (n=2).
o 28.6% of personal, violent crimes (2 of 7) involved a weapon (1 was a
gun).
o 2 of the 7 victims of personal, violent crimes (28.6%) knew their
offenders.
4.7% (n=2) of victims in 2012 said the victimization was sexual:
o One of the two was date rape and both were characterized as sexual
harassment
Figure 10. Type of On-Campus Victimization 2008-2012
100
80
80
Percent

66.7
69.8
60
40
24.6
21.3
18.2
20
10
2.9
4.7
0
Property
Personal, Violent
Sexual
54
Reporting Victimization to Campus Police

59.5% reported the victimization to campus police. 65.0% in 2009 and 66.0% in
2008.
Those who did not report, n=17, did not do so for the following reasons (not mutually exclusive)

70.6% (n=12) did not believe that the police could do anything about the incident.

17.6% (n=3) feared retribution by the offender.
Satisfaction with Campus Police (After reporting a crime on campus)
Table 12. Student Victim Satisfaction with UNC Charlotte Police
2008
Satisfied
Neither
Unsatisfied
N
22
4
20
%
47.8%
8.7%
43.5%
2009
N
22
9
21
%
42.3%
17.3%
39.4%
2012
N
9
8
8
%
36.0%
32.0%
32.0%
There is no difference by gender or race.
Perception of Campus Police
A greater proportion of students in 2012 than in 2009 feel that the UNC Charlotte police can
ensure public safety.

55.4% feel they can ensure safety well and only 13.0% feel they cannot do it well. This
compares with 37.1% and 1.6% respectively in 2009.
55
Figure 11. Student Perceptions of How Well Campus Police Ensure Public Safety
2009/2012
25
21.6
20
18.6
18.1
16.7
Percent
15
12.5
10.7
10.4
12.3
12.3
11.5
10
8.4
7.6
5.6
4.5
5
7.3
5.8
5.3
4.1
4
2.7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Scale
2009
2012

There has been an increase from 16.4% to 23.1% of students seeing UNC Charlotte
police on foot from 2009 to 2012

There has not been any major change in the percent of students who see the police on
bicycle or in cars.
Table 13. Frequency of Police Sightings by Students 2012 (2009)
Frequency of Police
Sightings
On Foot
On Bike
In Cars
Seldom/never
76.9% (83.6%)
90.1% (90.3%)
18.1% (20.3)
Few Times/Daily
23.1% (16.4%)
9.9% (9.7%)
81.8% (79.7)
56
Table 14. Students seeing police on foot
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Valid
Never
951
36.3
38.5
Seldom
949
36.2
38.4
A few times
429
16.4
17.3
Daily
144
5.5
5.8
Total
2473
94.3
100.0
149
5.7
2622
100.0
Missing System
Total
Table 15. Students seeing police on bicycles
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Valid
Never
1510
57.6
61.1
Seldom
718
27.4
29.0
A few times
208
7.9
8.4
Daily
37
1.4
1.5
Total
2473
94.3
100.0
149
5.7
2622
100.0
Missing System
Total
Table 16. Students seeing police in cars
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Valid
Never
97
3.7
3.9
Seldom
351
13.4
14.2
A few times
847
32.3
34.2
Daily
1178
44.9
47.6
Total
2473
94.3
100.0
149
5.7
2622
100.0
Missing System
Total
57
What Students Feel Would Help Campus Safety
Themes of student suggestions are:

Police need to be more visible, especially at night and around parking areas.

A large proportion wanted the police to be on foot or on bikes around the parking lots and
decks when night classes were out.
o Police community relations could be improved. Comments suggest that students
would like the police to interact with them more informally and be more friendly
and open to non-crime related situations.

More lights, and/or brighter lights.
o Comments on lighting were made by ¼ of the respondents.

More Blue Lights (or fix broken ones).

Better and more efficient safe-ride arrangements and more shuttles at night; also shuttles
to off campus residence areas.
o Of special concern is the wait time and the lighting at the pick-up locations.
58
Table 17. Student recommendations
Student Recommendation
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Increase police/security visibility
538
47.8
52.2
More or better lighting
252
22.4
24.4
Better Safe-ride service
71
6.3
6.9
Increase or fix blue lights
52
4.6
5.0
Cameras
39
3.5
3.8
Allow weapons
25
2.2
2.4
Better check of who's on campus at night gate campus at night
19
1.7
1.8
Better notification/emails about crime
16
1.4
1.6
Permit parking closer at night
7
.6
.7
Provide fee self-defense or add selfdefense classes
6
.5
.6
Trim bushes/trees
6
.5
.6
1031
91.6
100.0
94
8.4
1125
100.0
Total
Not coded
Total
59
XII.
Appendix C: Faculty/staff survey report
Faculty/Staff Survey Report
Paul C. Friday, PhD
Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology
I. Introduction
This is a report on the results of a campus-wide faculty-Staff survey conducted in April 2012
designed to elicit UNC Charlotte employee feelings, experiences and perspectives on their safety
on campus. The survey also includes self reported victimization. The results will be compared
with the findings of the 2009 report when possible.
II. Methodology
All UNC Charlotte employees were offered the opportunity to respond to an anonymous survey
through the university’s email network using CampusLabs (a survey subscription service of
UNC Charlotte). Each prospective subject received an individual embedded link in the email
invitation that requested their participation in the survey. The individual embedded link allowed
subjects to access the survey. Each person who did not respond to the invitation was sent a
reminder one week later and a second reminder a week after that.
Characteristics of Respondents
o Total respondents: 1257 – 33.6% (Gives 95% confidence that findings are within ±2.3%)
o Demographics:
o
o
o
o
501 (60.1%) female 755 (39.8%) male
44.9% (N=565) over 50 years of age
37.2% (N=468) 36 – 50 years of age
17.8% (N=224) 35 or younger
1 (0..08%) Transgender
60
o 61.7% of respondents have worked at UNC Charlotte for five or more years
Table 18. Years of employment
Count
220
76
75
110
776
1257
o 41.0% faculty
o 57.8% staff
Percent
Years
17.50%
1
6.05%
2
5.97%
3
8.75%
4
61.73% 5 or more
Respondents
1.2% Post Doctoral/visiting scholars
Table 19 Employee demographics
Count
435
81
679
47
9
6
1257
Percent
34.61%
6.44%
54.02%
3.74%
0.72%
0.48%
Respondents
Full-time faculty
Part-time faculty
Full-time staff
Part-time staff
Post-Doctoral
Visiting faculty/researcher
III. Findings


83.5% of employees feel safe on-campus; this is higher than 77.5% in 2009.

23.8% of employees who were on campus four years ago feel safer now than they did
four years ago, 20.1% feel less safe, and 56.1% feel the same
Staff is significantly more likely than faculty to feel safer on campus now than they did
four years ago (p<.001).
o 26.9% of staff feel safer now.
o 18.8% of faculty feel safer now.
61
Table 20. Changes in perception of campus safety over past four years
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Valid
Much less safe
28
2.2
3.4
Less safe
138
11.0
16.7
No difference
464
36.9
56.1
Safer
164
13.0
19.8
33
2.6
4.0
Total
827
65.8
100.0
Missing Not applicable
408
32.5
22
1.8
430
34.2
1257
100.0
Much safer
System
Total
Total
Table 21. Feelings of safety over four years – faculty and staff
Q17. How safe compared with four years ago
Much less safe
Count
% within Faculty-Staff
Less safe
Count
% within Faculty-Staff
No difference
Count
% within Faculty-Staff
Safer
Count
% within Faculty-Staff
Much safer
Count
% within Faculty-Staff
Total
Count
% within Faculty-Staff
Faculty-Staff
Faculty
Staff
Visiting
Total
11
17
0
28
3.2%
3.6%
.0%
3.4%
66
70
2
138
19.1%
14.7%
33.3%
16.7%
204
260
0
464
59.0%
54.7%
.0%
56.1%
55
105
4
164
15.9%
22.1%
66.7%
19.8%
10
23
0
33
2.9%
4.8%
.0%
4.0%
346
475
6
827
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
62
Overall Feelings of Safety (Respondents 1257)

83.5% feel safe on-campus which is higher than 77.5% in 2009.
o 6.0% feel unsafe on-campus which is significantly lower than the 9.8% in 2012 .
Table 22. Overall feelings of safety - 2012
Frequency
Percent
6
.5
Somewhat unsafe
67
5.5
Neither safe nor unsafe
130
10.6
Reasonably safe
683
55.6
Very safe
342
27.9
Total
1228
100.0
Valid Very unsafe

There is no significant difference in feelings of overall safety between faculty, staff, or
visiting scholars/researchers; slightly more staff employees feel the same compared with
faculty.
o 82.0% of faculty; 77.9in 2009; 75.8% in 2008
o 84.5% of other employees; 77.3% in 2012; 75.0% in 2008
o 86.7% of visiting scholars/researchers
63
Percent
Figure 12. Overall Feelings of Safety 2008-2012
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
83.5
77.5
75.4
14.3 10.3
12.6
2008
10.6
9.8
2009
Safe
Neutral
6
2012
Unsafe
Demographic
Differences: Gender
While the proportion of both male and female employees who feel, overall, unsafe on
campus is relatively small, female employees are statistically significantly more likely than
male employees to express feeling of being unsafe on campus (p <.000). The percentage of
female employees feeling unsafe has decreased since 2008 and 2009.
Table 23. Feelings of overall safety by gender
Gender
Male
Overall Safety
Safe
Count
597
1025
87.5%
80.9%
83.5%
44
85
129
9.0%
11.5%
10.5%
17
56
73
Percent
3.5%
7.6%
5.9%
Count
489
738
1227
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count
Percent
Unsafe
Total
Total
428
Percent
Neutral
Female
Count
Percent
o 7.6% (N=56) 10.6% (N=75) of female employees feel unsafe on campus (10.6%
in 2009 and 11.8% in 2008).

80.9% of female employees feel safe (75.5%in 2009 and 71.2% in 2008).
64
o 3.5% (N=17) of male employees feel unsafe on campus (8.7% in 2009 and 7.8%
in 2008).

87.7% of male employees feel safe (80.5% in 2009 and (82.1% in 2008).
Figure 13. General Differences in Feelings of Safety –Male/Female: 2009-2012
100
90
80
87.5
80.5
80.9
74.5
Percent
70
60
50
40
30
13.9
20
10.8
9
11.5
10
8.7
10.6
0
2009 Safe
2012 Safe
2009 Neutral
Male
2012 Neutral
2009 Unsafe
Female
Both female staff and faculty increased their perceptions of safety between 2009 and 2012.
65
Figure 14. Feeling Safe by Gender and Employee Position
100
82
80
85.7
79.6
78.9
74.3
89.1
82.2
76
Percent
60
40
20
0
Faculty 2009
Staff 2012
Staff 2008
Males
Staff 2012
Females
Figure 15. Feelings of Safety by Gender/Employee Position 2008-2012
100
82.5 82
85.7
81.6
79.6
89.1
74.3
69.8
80
78.9
76
82.2
72
Percent
60
40
20
0
Male Faculty
Male Staff
2008
Female Faculty
2009
Female Staff
2012
Specific Feelings of Safety

In nearly all situations, the percent of employees feeling safe has increased since 2009.
o The one exception to this pattern is the feeling of safety being alone in
classrooms. The most common comment on this is the lack of cell phone
reception in some locations.
66

Fewer than 50% now feel unsafe on campus after dark while the percentage feeling safe
is over 1/3

49.1% feel somewhat to very unsafe after dark while walking in parking lots or decks in
2012. This is an improvement from 58.3% in 2009.
Table 24. Areas/Times When Employee Feel Relatively Safe on Campus, 2012
On-Campus Activity
Safe
Neither
Unsafe
Areas/Times Feeling Relatively Safe
Walking alone during daylight hours
96.6 (94.7)*
2.0 (2.6)
1.5 (2.7)
Waiting alone for public transportation during
daylight hours
95.0 (93.9)
2.1 (3.6)
2.1(2.5)
Meeting students in my office
91.4 (89.9)
6.3 (7.7)
2.3 (2.5)
Attending lectures cultural events
92.0 (88.3)
6.3 (8.7)
1.7 (3.0)
While attending athletic events
90.6 (89.8)
7.5 (6.9)
1.7 (3.3)
Alone in classroom
85.4 (88.9)
10.5 (8.2)
4.1 (2.8)
Walking alone in parking decks/lots during
daylight hours
83.8 (78.3)
8.5 (9.9)
7.7 (11.8)
Alone in office
83.7 (79.7)
7.8 (9.5)
8.5 (10.7)
*Percent in parentheses is 2009 data. Number in red shows decrease in percent feeling safe;
number in green shows increase in perception of safety.
67
Table 25. Areas/Times When Employee Feel Relatively Unsafe on Campus
On-Campus Activity
Safe
Neither
Unsafe
16.5 (12.2)
48.9 (58.5)
Areas/Times Feeling Unsafe
Walking alone on campus after dark
34.6 (29.3)
N=355
Walking alone in parking decks/lots after dark
36.4 (30.2)
N=502
14.5 (13.3)
N=389
Waiting alone for public transportation after
dark
40.0 (28.6)
N=167
49.1 (56.5)
N=524
13.9 (13.0)
46.1 (58.3)
N=340
*Percent in parentheses is 2009 data. Number in red shows decrease in percent feeling
safe; number in green shows increase in perception of safety.
Particular Areas Where Employees Feel Unsafe
A complete list of the locations where employees feel unsafe is in Appendix II. There were a
total of 518 responses given. For heuristic purposes an effort was made to classify these into
some meaningful categories. 461 were classified.

Over half (56.4%) mention decks - 25.6% mention “decks” without being specific while
11.9% say Cone Deck, 9.8% East Deck, 7.4% West Deck and 1.7% Union Deck. 18.7%
mention various walkways, especially as they border wooded areas. 11.5% indicate they
feel unsafe in various parking lots.
68
Table 26. Campus locations where employees feel unsafe, 2012
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Valid
Decks-General
118
22.8
25.6
Cone Deck
55
10.6
11.9
East Deck
45
8.7
9.8
West Deck
34
6.6
7.4
Union Deck
8
1.5
1.7
Roadways
3
.6
.7
Walkways - greenways
86
16.6
18.7
Various Parking Lots
53
10.2
11.5
Individual Office Building
10
1.9
2.2
8
1.5
1.7
15
2.9
3.3
CRI
5
1.0
1.1
Cone-Reese area
8
1.5
1.7
Rowe-Robinson wooded areas
3
.6
.7
Denny-Garringer quad
8
1.5
1.7
Cameron-Smith area
2
.4
.4
461
89.0
100.0
57
11.0
518
100.0
Crosswalks
Anywhere after dark
Total
Missing System
Total
Victimization by type (on campus)

7.3% of employees (n=90) say that they have experienced a verbal
threat on campus (7.7% in 2009 and 9.4% in 2008)
o 8.4% of faculty were threatened (n=44)
o 6.4% of other employees (n=46)
69
o 62.9% (n=56) of those verbally threatened were threatened by a student (71.0 in
2012 and 71.2% in 2008).
o 51.4% (n=18) of males who were threatened were threatened by a student (58.8%
in 2009); of the females threatened, 70.4% (n=38) were threatened by a student
(78.8% in 2009).
o Of the faculty threatened, 72.1% (85.4% in 2009) were threatened by a student;
52.3% (59.6% in 2009) of staff employees who were threatened were threatened
by a student.

Being verbally threatened is statistically significantly related to overall feelings of safety.
Of those threatened, 13.5% (n=120) feel unsafe (19.4% in 2009) while only 5.4% (9.0%
in 2009) not threatened feel unsafe and 84.9% not threatened feel safe. (p<.001).
Table 27. Feelings of safety by having been verbally threatened
Verbally
Threatened
Yes
OVERALL FEELINGS
OF SAFETY
Safe
Count
Percent
Neutral Count
Percent
Unsafe Count
Percent
Total
Count
No
58
65.2%
19
21.3%
Total
963
1021
84.9% 83.5%
110
129
9.7% 10.5%
12
61
73
13.5%
5.4%
6.0%
89
1134
1223
Percent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1.6% (n=20) of UNC Charlotte employees indicate that they were the
victim of a crime on campus in the past year.

(3.6% in 2009 and 2.8% in 2008)
70
o Of those victimized, 50% were male and 50% female. (In 2009, 55% were
female).
o 35% of those victimized were faculty; 65% other staff. Other staff were
53.5% of the victims in 2009.This difference is not statistically
significant

Only 1 employee reported having been the victim of a violent/personal crime on campus
this past year.
Table 28. Employee Victimization on campus by type
Type of Victimization
Property
Violent/Personal
Other
2007/08
2008/09
2011/12
25 (96.2%)
40 (93.0%)
16 (80%)
0
1 (2.3%)
1 (5.0%)
3 (11.5%)
7 (16.3%)
5 (15%)
Types of Victimization
The following shows the distribution of the types of victimization (not mutually exclusive)
for those who reported having been victimized.
Table 29. Specific Types of Employee Victimization on Campus
2009
Type of Victimization
(Not mutually exclusive)
2012
N (43)
Percent
N (16)
Percent
Theft of personal property
20
46.5
11
68.8
Theft from workstation
23
53.5
8
50.0
Office break-in
11
25.6
5
31.3
Theft from automobile
6
14.0
1
6.3
Damage to personal property
14
32.6
3
18.8
Assault/battery
1
2.3
1
0.1
Robbery
1
2.3
0
0
71
Reporting victimization to the police

13 (65%) of employees reported their victimizations to campus police. (74.4% in
2009 and 71% in 2008).
Table 30. Types of Victimizations Reported to the Police
Type of Victimization
(Not mutually exclusive)

Reported (N)
Did Not Report
(N)
Theft of personal property
63.6% (7)
36.4% (4)
Theft from workstation
62.5% (5)
37.5% (3)
Office break-in
80.0% (4)
20.0% (1)
Theft from automobile
100% (1)
0
Damage to personal property
33.3% (1)
66.7% (2)
Assault/battery
100% (1)
0
The primary reason stated by those who did not report the crime to the police was that
they felt the police could not do anything about it – 5 of 7.
The following are the reasons for not reporting (not mutually exclusive).
Table 31. Reasons Crime Victimizations Were Not Reported to Campus Police
Reason not reporting

N
%
Didn’t think police could do anything about it
5
71.4
Incident too minor
3
42.9
Didn’t want to take the time
2
28.6
There is no difference in reason for not reporting by gender
72
Satisfaction with Campus Police (After reporting a crime on campus)

69.3% (9 of 13) of employees who had been a victim of crime and reported it to
campus police were satisfied with the response. 59.4% in 2009 and 50% satisfied in
2008.

23.1% 21.9% (n=3) were neither satisfied nor unsatisfied. 21.9% in 2009.

One person (7.7%) 18.8% (n=6) was dissatisfied. 18.8% in 2009 and 19.0% were
dissatisfied in 2008.
Perception of Campus Police
Respondents were asked to rate how well they believe that UNC Charlotte police can ensure
public safety on a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being “very well.” The average rating was 6.7.
Faculty rated the police 6.5 and staff rated the police 6.9.
There has been a substantial increase since 2008 in the perception that campus police can
ensure public safety.

61.2% believe they ensure public safety well – 38.0% in 2009
Figure 16. Employee Perceptions of How Well Campus Police Ensure Public Safety
25
Percent
20
15
10
5
0
2008
2009
2012
73

Staff are significantly more likely to feel that UNC Charlotte Police and Public Safety
can ensure public safety well compared with faculty (p<.001).
o 65.9% of staff think our police can ensure safety compared with 54.6% of faculty.
Table 32. Perception of how well UNC Charlotte police can ensure public safety by employee
type
How well UNC Charlotte police can ensure public safety
Not well
Count
% within Faculty-Staff
Neutral
Count
% within Faculty-Staff
Well
Count
% within Faculty-Staff
Total
Count
% within Faculty-Staff

Faculty-Staff
Faculty
Staff
Visiting
Total
62
53
3
118
12.2%
7.5%
20.0%
9.6%
168
187
3
358
33.1%
26.6%
20.0%
29.2%
277
464
9
750
54.6%
65.9%
60.0%
61.2%
507
704
15
1226
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Male employees are more likely than female employees to feel that UNC Charlotte police
can ensure safety, but this difference is not statistically significant.
o 65.4% of males compared with 58.5% of female employees feel the police can
ensure public safety well
74
Table 33. Perception of how well UNC Charlotte police can ensure public safety by gender
How well UNC Charlotte police can ensure
public safety
Not well
Neutral
Count
Female
Total
76
118
Percent
8.6%
10.3%
9.6%
Count
127
230
357
26.0%
31.2%
29.1%
319
431
750
65.4%
58.5%
61.2%
488
737
1225
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count
Percent
Total
Male
42
Percent
Well
Gender
Count
Percent
There is no significant difference in perception by length of employment but 69% of those
employed two years respond “well” compared with 58% of those employed five or more years.
Frequency Employees See UNC Charlotte Police

There has not been much change since 2009 in how often employees see campus police
but a few more see them on foot or in cars.
Table 34. Frequency of UNC Charlotte Police Sightings by Employees Police
Frequency of Police
Sightings
On Foot
On Bike
In Cars
Few Times/Daily
26.9% (22.9%)*
13.7% (16.8%)
82.7% (79.3%)
Seldom/Never
73.1% (77.1%)
86.3% (83.2%)
17.3% (20.7%)
* Number in parentheses is for 2009
75
Employee Recommendations
Employees made numerous suggestions, which are found in Appendix III. There were a
total of 671 comments. 607 could be coded into general categories of comments/suggestion. The
other were not less important, but could not be codified. The focus on a few consistent themes:
 52.7% of comments references police visibility of some sort
o 18.8% wanted more visibility in general
o 17.6% want more police presence – especially on foot or bike
o
9.7% want more visibility when it is dark
o
5.4% specifically want more visibility in decks and parking lots

19.3% made reference to better or more lighting around campus and in the decks

5.9% think there should be better control of traffic on and access to campus. This
includes concerns about the safety at cross walks
Table 35. Employee Recommendations
Valid
Recommendation
Valid
Frequency Percent
General-positive comments
7
1.2
More police visibility
114
18.8
More visibility - walking, on bikes
107
17.6
More visibility - at dusk, dawn,
night
59
9.7
More visibility - decks, lots
33
5.4
7
1.2
117
19.3
Restrict/control traffic; crosswalk
safety
36
5.9
Use of cameras
26
4.3
More emergency blue lights/other
contact options
19
3.1
Better emergency notification
information/staff training
19
3.1
Better control of building access/ID
18
3.0
More visibility - outskirts, walk
ways
More, better lighting
76
usage
Escort, safe ride improvements
12
2.0
Be more responsive/interactive with
employees, students
10
1.6
Allow concealed weapons
10
1.6
Better cell phone coverage
9
1.5
Trim shrubbery
4
.7
607
100.0
Total
Missing System
Total
64
671
While the proportion of comments was relatively small, the following comments are worth
considering:

More information and training is requested for faculty/staff on how to respond to
emergencies.

Some requested better interpersonal interaction/response between police and campus
citizens.

Some requested better, more emergency notifications but it is evident that many do not
know what is currently in place.
77
Summary
Employee feelings of safety on campus have improved since the last study in 2009.

83.5% feel safe on-campus which is higher than 77.5% in 2009.

6.0% feel unsafe on-campus which is significantly lower than the 9.8% in 2012

With such a high proportion actually feeling safe 24% actually feel safer than they did
four years ago
Findings of the Faculty/Staff Campus Safety Survey suggest the following:
1. Staff tends to feel safer now than four years ago but there are no other statistical
differences between faculty or other staff.
2. Female employees are statistically significantly more likely than male employees to
express feeling of being unsafe on campus (p <.000). However, the percentage of female
employees feeling unsafe has decreased since 2008 and 2009.
3. Employees feel most unsafe while walking alone on campus after dark, walking to
parking decks or lots, and while waiting alone for public transportation.
4. Parking decks are mentioned most often as the places where employees feel unsafe –
particularly at dawn/dusk. They suggest that they would like to see police in those areas
in the morning and at the end of the day when coming to and going home from work.
5. A number of specific areas of concern were mentioned but many were concerned about
walking to decks/lots in peripheral areas such as going from Robinson to East Deck.
6. A small percentage, 1.6%, of employees has been a victim of a crime on the UNC
Charlotte campus – this is significantly down from 7.7% in 2009 and 9.2% in 2008.
7. The majority of victimizations involved theft of personal property; only one person
reported a personal offense.
8. Employees want the police to have much more visibility – and visibility on foot or
bicycles. There is a strong feeling that the police are not visible enough at critical times –
the end of the day in decks and at lots.
9. Lighting seems to be of concern for employees. There is a feeling that either more or
brighter lights are needed.
78
XII.
Appendix D: Alcohol purchase study report
ALCOHOL PURCHASE STUDY
Retail Establishments
June, 2012
Paul C. Friday, Ph. D.
Diane Weigle-Bailey
Department of Criminal Justice
2012 UNC Charlotte Underage Alcohol Purchase Study2
This is the fourth University Area alcohol purchase study to determine how easy it is to purchase
alcohol without providing legitimate identification. It was conducted in the spring of 2012. This
study focused on thirty-six establishments with off-premise Malt liquor sale permits.
Methodology
A pool of potential buyers was recruited from students at UNC Charlotte. All students were
required to be at least 21 years of age. Each was interviewed and selected if they appeared to be
underage. All buy attempts were made between 5 pm and 9 pm on a Monday, Tuesday,
Wednesday, or Thursday between May 1 and May 30. All buyers were asked to buy a 6-pack of
a domestic beer or a bottle without voluntarily offering identification.
The sale was either consummated by the clerk or not. If a sale was made, the alcohol was
marked with the name of the establishment and the date and time of the purchase. It was decided
that an actual sale would be made to 1) not significantly disrupt the purchase process if
legitimate customers were in line and 2) to have a clearly defined “sale” verifying that the
identification was not checked and to have “proof” of receipt to provide to managers who
consistently requested this information when informed of the sale on the follow-up visit.
Spring 2012 Study
A total of 38 establishments situated around the University City Area that extended within a
three-mile radius of the campus were approached. Some of the businesses in previous studies
have been closed and new establishments have opened within the past year.
2
Funded by Substance Abuse Prevention Services under contract with UNC Charlotte.
79
The proportion of establishments in the University area selling beer without
checking for identification has increased since Spring, 2011
28.9% sold Spring 2012; 18.5% sold Spring 2011
There were three possible sale outcomes: ID requested – no sale; ID requested, no ID shown but
sale made, and no ID requested at all.
Table 36. Sales of alcohol with/without checking for identification
2011
UNC Charlotte Area
2012
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes, sale made without asking for identification
4
14.8
5
13.2
Yes, identification requested, none give, sold anyway
1
3.7
6
15.8
Sale
5
18.5
11
28.9
No sale
22
81.5
27
71.1
Total
27
100.0
34
100
Table 37. List of University Area Establishments Visited
2012
SOLD
SOLD
SOLD
SOLD
SOLD
SOLD
SOLD
SOLD
SOLD
SOLD
SOLD
No Sale
No Sale
No Sale
No Sale
No Sale
No Sale
No Sale
2011
No Sale
No Sale
No Sale
No Sale
No Sale
No Sale
No Sale
No Sale
No Sale
No Sale
No Sale
No Sale
No Sale
No Sale
SOLD
No Sale
No Sale
No Sale
Establishment
CVS
CVS
Food Lion
Harris Teeter
North Star
Seven-Eleven
Shell (7-11)
Super El Mercado
Target
Trader Joe’s
Walgreens
Bloom (Food Lion)
Circle K
Circle K
Citgo
Express Shop
Exxon (7-11)
Food Lion
Address
10515 Mallard Cr. Church Rd, Charlotte
11430 N. Tryon, Charlotte
1704 Harris Houston Rd, Charlotte
2201 West W.T. Harris Blvd Charlotte NC
5926 North Tryon St Charlotte NC
8101 Old Concord Rd, Charlotte
9025 Mallard Creek Rd Charlotte NC
6301 N. Tryon, Charlotte
8120 University City Blvd, Charlotte
1820 East Arbor Dr. Charlotte
2200 West Sugar Creek Rd., Charlotte
9323 North Tryon St Charlotte NC
1809 East Arbor Rd Charlotte NC
9501 University City Blvd Charlotte NC
5037 North Tryon St Charlotte NC
10022 University City Blvd Charlotte NC
1901 Pavilion Blvd Charlotte NC
3024 Prosperity Church Rd Charlotte NC
Zip
28262
28262
28262
28269
28213
28213
28262
28213
28213
28262
28262
28262
28262
28262
28213
28262
28213
28269
80
No Sale
No Sale
No Sale
SOLD
X
No Sale
No Sale
No Sale
No Sale
No Sale
No Sale
No Sale
No Sale
No Sale
No Sale
No Sale
No Sale
No Sale
No Sale
No Sale
Harris Teeter
Harris Teeter
2720 West Mallard Creek Church Rd
8600 University City Blvd, Charlotte
28269
28213
x
SOLD
No Sale
No Sale
No Sale
SOLD
No Sale
No Sale
X
No Sale
Hess/Wilco
Hong Kong Grocery
Kangaroo Express
Kangaroo Express
Rite Aid
Rite Aid
Sam’s Mart (7-11)
Sam’s Mart (7-11)
Sam's Mart (7-11)
Shell Express Mart
Total Wine
28213
28213
28213
28262
28262
28213
28213
28262
28213
28262
28262
SOLD
x
No Sale
No Sale
Walgreens
Walgreens
Walmart
Wilco Hess
10207 North Tryon St Charlotte NC
6701 N. Tryon, Charlotte
10000 North Tryon St Charlotte NC
10409 Mallard Creek Rd Charlotte NC
8110 Mallard Creek Rd Charlotte NC
8532 University City Blvd., Charlotte
9608 University City Blvd
10023 North Tryon St Charlotte NC
6500 North Tryon St Charlotte NC
6201 N. Tryon, Charlotte
440 East McCollough Dr Charlotte NC
2800 W. Mallard Creek Church Rd,
Charlotte
8538 N. Tryon, Charlotte
7735 North Tryon St Charlotte NC
10925 University City Blvd Charlotte NC
28269
28262
28213
28213
x Not visited
The protocol for this research calls for return visits by UNC Charlotte representatives to each
establishment that sold without checking for identification. Each manager is informed of the
outcome of the study, given a copy of the receipt, offered free employee training by
Mecklenburg County ABC, and told that the university takes underage drinking seriously and
that we hope that they will join us in addressing the problem. They are told that UNC Charlotte
would like each to follow the Best Practice of carding those who looked younger than 35. (It is
not against the law not to ID someone).
None of the establishments that sold in 2011 sold in 2012.
Buyer Characteristics
There were no differences in the probability of making a successful purchase by actual age, race
or gender of the buyer. This is consistent with the results found in previous University area
studies and the 2009,2010, and 2011 Mecklenburg County studies.
81
Clerk Characteristics
There were no differences in the perceived age or race/ethnicity of the clerk. This contrasts with
the results of 2009 and 2010 where female clerks were more likely than male clerks to sell.
There is no relation between the clerk’s gender and either the gender or race of the buyer.
Results from four studies
The proportion of establishments selling without proper identification declined slightly each year
until this study period.
Table 38. Sale of Alcohol without ID, 2009-2012
Attempt Outcome
University Area
2009
University Area
2010
University Area
2011
University Area
2012
A sale was made without ID
5 (13.2%)
4 (11.4%)
4 (11.4%)
5 (13.2%)
ID was asked for, none
provided, sale anyway
3 (7.9%)
3 (8.6%)
1( 5.7%)
6 (15.8%)
Total Sale
8 (21.1%)
7 (20.0%)
5(18.5%)
11 (28.9%)
ID asked for, no sale
30 (78.9%)
28 (80.0%)
27 (81.5%)
27 (71.1%)
Number of Attempts
38
35
27
34
Figure 17. Trend in sales without checking for ID – University Area
50.0
40.0
Percent
28.9
30.0
21.1
20
18.5
2009
2010
2011
20.0
10.0
0.0
2012
Percent Sales
82
Type of Establishment

Proportionately, convenience stores selling gas are most common but the proportion
selling without identification has decreased.
o 2009 – 25.0% sold
o 2010 – 20.0% sold
o 2011 – 18.8% sold
o 2012 – 13.3% sold

Supermarkets have shown the greatest decline in the proportion selling without checks.
o 2009 – 18.2% sold
o 2010 – 36.4%% sold
o 2011 – one sale (16.7%)
o 2012 – 33.3% sold (3 of 9)
Table 39. Sale of Alcohol without ID by Type of Establishment by Year, 2012 (2011)
Type of Outlet
Sale without
checking ID
market/small
Convenience Convenience
Drugstore/
grocery store Supermarket
(with gas) (without gas)
pharmacy
(deli)
Wine
shop
Total
1 (1)
22
Count
13 (13)
0 (1)
2 (1
6 (5)
5 (1)
Percent
86.7%
(81.3%)
0% (100.0%)
50%
(100.0%)
66.7%
(83.3%)
62.5%
(50.0%)
Count
2 (3)
1 (0)
2 (0)
3 (1)
3 (1)
0 (0)
5
Percent
13.3%
(18.8%)
100% (.0%)
50% (.0%)
33.3%
(16.7%)
37.5%
(50.0%)
.0%
18.5%
Count
15 (16)
1 (1)
4 (1)
9 (6)
8 (2)
1
27
Percent
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
No
Yes
100.0% 81.5%
Total
100.0% 100.0%
Numbers in ( ) are 2011
83
Conclusion
The data show a few a few significant things:
1. The proportion of establishments selling alcohol for off-premise consumption without
checking for identification has increased for the first time since the studies have been
conducted.
2. The establishments most likely to sell without checking for identification are convenient
stores that also sell gasoline.
3. Supermarket sales without asking for identification have returned to about the same rate
as 2010. In 2010 36% sold; this year 33.3% sold.
4. The proportion of clerks selling even after having asked for ID and none was shown has
increased. This is a new trend that should be addressed in training.
5. None of the establishments that sold in 2011, and were visited by UNC Charlotte
representatives, sold this year.
This study is not able to explain why there has been an increase in the proportion of
establishments selling without checking for ID – or, in this study – selling after no ID was
actually shown.
The results suggest that the University needs to continue to monitor sales at establishments
where students are likely to frequent.
84
ALCOHOL PURCHASE STUDY
Bars and Restaurants
July, 2012
Paul C. Friday, Ph. D.
Diane Weigle-Bailey
Department of Criminal Justice
This is a supplemental University Area alcohol purchase study to determine how easy it is to
purchase alcohol in local bars/restaurants without providing legitimate identification. It was
conducted in May/June 2012. This study focused on twenty-five establishments within the
immediate UNC Charlotte area.
Methodology
Two students, both over 21 but looking under 21, were asked to visit all of the local
bars/restaurants. One was to show ID if asked (companion) and the other (subject) was to
provide no identification or proof of age. If the clerk agreed to serve the companion but not the
subject, the students were asked to decline service and leave. If the subject was served, both were
to enjoy their drinks and go to the next location. They were instructed to have no more than two
drinks per study sequence. The question was whether the establishment would 1) sell o the
subject without seeing identification and 2) would they sell to the subject if the companion
proved to be over 21. The subject was Asian female.
Results


The subject was provided alcohol without providing proof of age 64.0% of the time.
36.0% of the time the companion with identification was served but the subject was not
given an alcoholic beverage
85
Specifically, the subject was provided an alcoholic beverage without being asked for
identification at all at 10 of 25 establishments (40%). In six instances (24%) identification was
requested but alcohol was still provided even though no ID was given.

There was no pattern to the sales by race or gender of the server or by the perceived age
of the seller.
Table 40. Sale without proof of age, 2012
Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Yes
10
40.0
40.0
Yes, asked for ID
6
24.0
64.0
No Sale
9
36.0
100.0
Total
25
100.0
Sale
Comparison with 2009

In 2009 sales were made at 38.5% of the establishments, significantly fewer than in 2012
Table 41. Sale without proof of age, 2009
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Yes
9
34.6
34.6
Yes, asked for ID
1
3.8
38.5
No Sale
16
61.5
100.0
Total
26
100.0
Sale
86
Establishments
Each of the establishments that sold in 2009 was visited by university personnel informing them
of the university’s desire to curb underage drinking. There was a mixed reaction of managers at
the time. Four of the sixteen establishments that sold in 2012 also sold without checking for
identification in 2009: Buffalo Wild Wings, Sushi 101, TGI Friday’s, and Wild wing Café. Four
of the establishments that sold in 2009 did not sell in 2012: Applebee’s, Bikini’s, Cheddars, and
Hickory Tavern.
Table 42. Establishments selling/not selling without identification 2009 and 2012
Sale/no
sale, 2012
SALE
SALE
SALE
SALE
SALE
SALE
SALE
SALE
SALE
SALE
SALE
SALE
SALE
SALE
SALE
SALE
No Sale
Establishment
Address
Bad Dog
8933 JM Keynes Drive Suite 2
Boardwalk Billys
9005 JM Keynes Drive
Buffalo Wild Wings
440
E. McCullough Drive Suite 230
Chili’s Grill and Bar
500
University Center Blvd
Flying Saucer Draught Emporium
9506 North Tryon Street
House of Leng
8933 JM Keynes Drive
LongHorn Steakhouse
8115 Old Mallard Creek Road
O'Charleys
8420 University City Blvd
Outback Steakhouse
1015 Chancellor Park Drive
Romano's Macaroni Grill
6820 Research Drive
Smokey Bones
8760 JM Keynes Drive
Sushi 101
8662 JW Clay Blvd
Taco Mac
517
University Center Blvd
TGI Fridays
409
W. WT Harris Blvd
Wild Wing Cafe
9539 Pinnacle Drive Suite 200
Zapatas Cantina
8927 JM Keynes Drive
Applebee's Neighborhood Grill and
Bar
8700 JW Clay Blvd
No Sale
Bikini's Sports Bar and Grill
520
University Center Blvd
No Sale
Cheddar's Casual Cafe
620
University Center Blvd
No Sale
Hickory Tavern
2005 East Arbors Drive
No Sale
Macado's
8650 University City Blvd
No Sale
Pho Real
440
E. McCollough Drive Suite 206
No Sale
Picasso's Sports Cafe
230
East WT Harris Blvd
No Sale
Red Robin
8304 Kenbrooke Drive
No Sale
The Wine Vault
9009 JM Keynes Drive
*No Check means that the establishment was not visited in 2009
Establishments checked in 2009 but not in business in 2012 are not listed
Sale/no
sale, 2009
No sale
No sale
SALE
No sale
No check
No check
No check
No sale
No sale
No check
No sale
SALE
No check
SALE
SALE
No sale
SALE
SALE
SALE
SALE
No check
No sale
No sale
No check
No sale
87